How Does One Be an Antisemite? Claim Antizionism!
How does one be an antisemite in 2026 without openly admitting it?
Simple. Claim you are not an antisemite while proudly calling yourself an antizionist.
Zionism is a simple concept: the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and a homeland in their ancestral homeland, where Jewish history stretches back more than 3,500 years.
Nothing more than that.
It does not mean supporting every Israeli government or agreeing with every military operation. Israelis themselves fiercely criticise their governments. That’s democracy.
But opposing a particular Israeli policy is not the same as opposing Israel’s existence.
That distinction matters.
When Jews alone are denied the right to national self-determination, while that right is supported for everyone else, we should ask whether “antizionism” is really as harmless as its defenders claim.
So when I say the rhetoric and actions of politicians such as Greens senators Mehreen Faruqi and Nick McKim, along with others on the Left, raise serious questions about antisemitism, allow me to explain.
Mehreen Faruqi has been photographed alongside imagery depicting Jews being thrown into rubbish bins. She has stood chanting “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “by any means necessary”, among others.
We are told these are harmless calls for Palestinian liberation.
Really?
If Palestine is to exist “from the river to the sea”, what happens to the millions of Israeli Jews living there?
And when someone says “by any means necessary”, does it include terrorism? Murder? Expelling Jews from Israel?
Those questions cannot simply be dismissed by labelling anyone who asks them a Zionist.
The irony is that Faruqi and others call for Israel to be “decolonised”, as though Jews suddenly arrived there in 1948.
They did not.
Jewish history is embedded in the land. Archaeology documents thousands of years of Jewish civilisation, kingdoms, religious life and connection to the region.
Israel’s history did not begin in 1948, nor did the Jewish connection to the land.
Then there is Senator Nick McKim, who has accused the Albanese government of being “captured by Zionist interests”.
Think about that language.
The idea that governments are secretly controlled by Jews or, in modern political language, “Zionists” is not new. It is one of the oldest antisemitic conspiracy theories in existence.
Words have consequences.
For decades before the Holocaust, Jews were demonised through propaganda, discrimination and conspiracy theories. They were portrayed as a threat, isolated from society and stripped of their rights.
The Holocaust did not begin with gas chambers.
It began with words, propaganda and the normalisation of hatred. Everything Albanese’s government has not only permitted but emboldened.
That does not mean every political disagreement today leads to another Holocaust. It means we should understand how societies become comfortable with language they once would have considered unacceptable.
Then there is Foreign Minister Penny Wong.
The Al-Ahli hospital explosion is a perfect example of why words matter.
Initial reports, including claims from Hamas-controlled authorities in Gaza, alleged that Israel had bombed the hospital and killed around 500 people. Those claims travelled around the world almost immediately and Israel was condemned.
Subsequent assessments concluded the explosion was more likely caused by a misfired Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket, with the blast occurring in the hospital car park rather than destroying the hospital itself. The reported casualty figure was also substantially disputed.
Yet once those facts emerged, where was the same urgency to correct the record and condemn these groups actually listed as terrorist organisations by the Australian government?
We saw this repeatedly throughout the war. Remember, Wong has intelligence at her disposal not available to us.
Words matter, facts matter Penny Wong – especially when you are Australia’s Foreign Minister.
And now Ambassador Hillel Newman has been called to a meeting with Wong.
I hope Ambassador Newman stood firm. I hope he reminded the Foreign Minister that her language matters, not only diplomatically, but to Jewish Australians who are already feeling increasingly vulnerable.
Wong represented Australia at the 80th commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau in January 2025.
Imagine standing in a place where millions of Jews were murdered because they had nowhere to go and nowhere that would protect them. I’ve stood there and understand perfectly well.
The lessons of the Holocaust cannot be commemorated ceremonially and then forgotten when politically inconvenient.
You cannot stand at Auschwitz and say “never again” while failing to understand why Jews believe they need a homeland in which they can defend themselves.
Australia should be capable of holding more than one thought at once.
We can demand humanitarian aid.
We can question Israeli military decisions.
And we can recognise Israel’s right to exist and defend itself.
These positions are not mutually exclusive.
The death of Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom was a tragedy. Israel accepted responsibility for the strike, investigated it and took disciplinary action. Israel’s conclusion is aligned with the review by Mark Binskin which took a similar view to Israel’s findings.
There was every reason to demand answers.
But where was the same relentless pressure on Hamas to release the hostages?
Since when has Hamas contacted Israelis before attacking them to ask whether they support Palestinian independence, or whether they are Jewish, Christian or Muslim?
They did not.
Yet so much political outrage appears to travel in only one direction.
Selective outrage is still outrage. Where is the outrage aimed at Islamic slaughter of Christians in Congo, Nigeria and Sudan? Yeah, thought so Penny.
Then there is the phrase “globalise the intifada”.
Too often, it is repeated as though it is simply another harmless protest slogan.
It is not.
The word intifada may mean “uprising”, but for Israelis and Jews, particularly in the context of the Second Intifada, it carries a terrifying association: suicide bombings on buses, attacks in cafés and restaurants, explosions in shopping centres and nightclubs, and the deliberate targeting of civilians.
That history matters.
When protesters and public figures call to “globalise the intifada”, Australians are entitled to ask exactly what they mean.
If the violence of the Second Intifada is the model being invoked, taking that violence global is not a call for peace or coexistence. It carries deeply disturbing implications.
Imagine a terrorist attack on a train in Melbourne’s CBD, a shopping centre, café or nightclub, with the attackers claiming they were “globalising the intifada”.
Would those who endorsed the slogan still insist it was merely political expression?
Would they still argue that the words had no connection to violence?
That is the point.
Words matter before violence occurs, not only afterwards.
We cannot pretend slogans exist in a vacuum. History gives words meaning. Those invoking them have a responsibility to explain exactly what they are calling for.
And replacing the word “Jew” with “Zionist” does not automatically make antisemitism disappear.
In the past, Jews were accused of controlling banks, governments and the media.
Today, we hear that governments are “captured by Zionist interests”.
The language changes.
The underlying conspiracy theory does not.
Criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic.
But neither is every accusation of antisemitism an attempt to silence criticism.
Sometimes antisemitism simply disguises itself in the political language of the day.
So perhaps the question Australians need to ask is not whether someone calls themselves an antisemite.
Of course, almost nobody does.
The real question is what they believe Jews are entitled to.
Do Jews have the right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland?
Do Jewish Australians deserve to live without being held responsible for a war far away?
Do they deserve to have their fears taken seriously?
And should Israel be held to standards we do not demand of every other country fighting for its survival?
If the answer is no, perhaps we should stop pretending that calling oneself “antizionist” automatically places someone beyond accusations of antisemitism.
How does one be an antisemite in 2026 without openly admitting it?
Perhaps that is exactly how.