Editorial policies must be developed independently, owned by the broadcaster itself
In the wake of a deadly attack on a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach, Australia's royal commission into antisemitism has become a crucible for one of the most contested questions in contemporary public life: where does legitimate criticism of a state end and hatred of a people begin. This week, the ABC and SBS declined to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism that the commission itself employs, each insisting that editorial independence — not external frameworks — must govern how they navigate such charged terrain. The decision is less a rejection of the fight against antisemitism than a assertion that public broadcasters must own the language they use to conduct it. It is a small institutional choice carrying the weight of a much larger civilizational argument.
- Fifteen people were killed and forty wounded at a Hanukkah celebration in Bondi Beach, and the royal commission established in response has made the definition of antisemitism itself a matter of urgent national debate.
- The IHRA definition's eleven illustrative examples have become a fault line, with critics from both Jewish and Palestinian communities warning that some examples risk treating criticism of Israeli policy as hatred of Jewish people.
- The ABC and SBS have each refused to adopt the IHRA framework, arguing that editorial policies imposed from outside — however well-intentioned — compromise the independence that makes public broadcasting trustworthy.
- The royal commission's own commissioner has clarified that criticism of Israeli government policy is not inherently antisemitic under the IHRA definition, yet the broadcasters remain unconvinced the ambiguity has been resolved.
- With Middle East conflict accounting for more than a quarter of all complaints to the ABC's ombudsman, the stakes of getting this language right are not abstract — they shape what millions of Australians hear, and what they come to believe.
When gunmen opened fire on a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach last December, killing fifteen people and wounding forty others, Australia was forced to confront antisemitism not as a distant phenomenon but as a present danger. A royal commission was established to examine the attack and its broader social context. Among its early decisions was to apply the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism — a framework used by governments and institutions across the world.
This week, Australia's two major public broadcasters declined to follow. The ABC and SBS each announced they would rely on their own internal editorial guidance rather than adopt the IHRA framework. At the heart of their objection are the definition's eleven illustrative examples, which critics argue can blur the distinction between attacking Israel as a state and attacking Jewish people as a group. The ABC was direct: it does not dispute the core concept of antisemitism, but finds the accompanying examples increasingly contentious and unsuitable for independent editorial use.
The ABC's own guidance draws a clear line — criticism of Israel becomes antisemitism when the target shifts from the state to Jewish people as a group — and the broadcaster insists this principle is both clear and sufficient. SBS similarly pointed to its charter obligations around balance and social cohesion as grounds for maintaining its own standards rather than endorsing any single external framework.
The royal commission's commissioner, Virginia Bell, has sought to reassure critics that the IHRA definition does not prohibit criticism of Israeli government policy, calling such criticism uncontroversial. But the broadcasters' refusal suggests that reassurance alone has not settled the matter. The commission continues its hearings, turning next to the conduct of security agencies, while the ABC's own complaint data reveals that Middle East coverage remains its most contested subject — a reminder that the words used to describe this conflict carry consequences far beyond the newsroom.
In the months since two gunmen opened fire on a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach in December, killing fifteen people and wounding forty others, Australia has grappled with how to define and confront antisemitism. A royal commission was established to examine the attack and its broader context. Early on, the inquiry announced it would apply the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition—a framework already adopted by many organizations worldwide. But this week, Australia's two major public broadcasters said no.
The ABC and SBS have each declined to use the IHRA definition, choosing instead to rely on their own internal editorial guidance. The decision reflects a tension that has animated the entire royal commission process: the IHRA definition, while widely used, has become a flashpoint in debates about how to distinguish antisemitism from legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy.
The IHRA defines antisemitism as "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews." On its face, this seems straightforward. But the definition comes with a set of illustrative examples—eleven specific scenarios meant to clarify what does and does not constitute antisemitism. Critics, including members of both Jewish and Palestinian communities, have argued that some of these examples blur the line between attacking Israel as a state and attacking Jewish people as a group. The ABC identified this ambiguity as the core problem. The broadcaster said it does not reject the underlying concept of antisemitism but objects to what it calls the "increasingly contentious" illustrative examples that accompany the IHRA framework.
The ABC's statement, released this week, emphasized a principle it has long held: that editorial policies must be developed independently, owned by the broadcaster itself, and applied without external imposition. "The ABC's existing guidance on hate speech is clear and unambiguous," the statement read, "including the principle that legitimate criticism of the State of Israel or the actions of some Israelis becomes antisemitism when the target shifts from 'Israel' to 'Jews.'" The broadcaster noted that its own definition of antisemitism aligns with the IHRA's core concept but diverges on the examples.
SBS took a similar stance. The broadcaster said it acknowledges that diverse definitions of antisemitism exist and that its role is to report on these issues in a balanced and impartial way, without endorsing any single organization's framework. SBS pointed to its charter, which emphasizes strengthening social cohesion through robust editorial standards.
The royal commission's inquiry commissioner, Virginia Bell, has already attempted to address one of the central concerns. She clarified that under the IHRA definition, criticism of Israeli government policies is "uncontroversial" and not inherently antisemitic. Yet the broadcasters' decision suggests this clarification has not fully resolved the underlying worry: that the illustrative examples, despite Bell's assurance, could still be interpreted as conflating the two.
The timing of the ABC and SBS decisions is notable. The royal commission continues its hearings, with the next block beginning Monday and focusing on the conduct of security agencies. Meanwhile, the ABC's own data shows that Middle East conflict remains the most complained-about subject matter to its ombudsman, accounting for 26 percent of all complaints last year. For a public broadcaster, this statistic underscores why editorial independence on such matters feels essential.
Dr. Dave Rich, policy director of the Community Security Trust, a UK charity protecting British Jews, testified to the commission that antisemitism is built on negative stereotypes and that holding Jews collectively responsible for Israeli state actions has been used to justify violence against Jewish people worldwide. His testimony reflects the stakes: how a society defines antisemitism shapes not only what gets said on air but what gets believed in the streets.
Citas Notables
Legitimate criticism of the State of Israel or the actions of some Israelis becomes antisemitism when the target shifts from 'Israel' to 'Jews'— ABC statement
Holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of Israel is the justification provided by terrorists who murder Jews around the world— Dr. Dave Rich, Community Security Trust policy director
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did the ABC feel it had to say no to the royal commission's chosen definition? Wasn't that a risk?
The ABC saw it as the opposite of a risk—a protection. If they adopted an external definition, they'd be outsourcing their editorial judgment. That's the thing about being a public broadcaster: you're supposed to answer to the public, not to a commission or a framework.
But the royal commission was established because of a massacre. Doesn't that create an obligation to align?
It does create moral weight, absolutely. But the ABC's argument is that alignment and independence aren't the same thing. They can agree that antisemitism is wrong without adopting someone else's rulebook for identifying it.
The IHRA definition seems reasonable on the surface. What's actually wrong with it?
Nothing's wrong with the core idea. The problem is the examples. They're supposed to clarify, but they've become a battleground. Critics say some examples make it too easy to call Israel criticism antisemitic. The ABC thinks that ambiguity is dangerous for a broadcaster.
So the ABC is saying their own guidance is clearer?
Yes. They're saying: we already have a principle that works. Criticism of Israel is fine. But if you start saying Jews as a group are responsible for what Israel does, that's where it crosses into antisemitism. That's their line.
Will this decision actually matter? Will it change what gets on air?
Probably not dramatically. But it signals something important: the ABC won't let external pressure—even from a royal commission—override its own judgment about what independence means. That's either principled or stubborn, depending on who you ask.