The antisemitic massacre at Bondi exposed a terrifying truth: that Jewish Australians can no longer take their safety for granted. The doxing, cancellation, threats and vilification of Jewish artists, lawyers, doctors, nurses, patients and academics since October 2023 have been virulent and traumatising for many Jews. Combating hatred, intimidation and violence against Jewish Australians is an urgent national responsibility.

That makes the report from Australia’s special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, an important intervention. But a strategy motivated by legitimate fears can still risk making the problem harder to solve.

Segal identifies antisemitism on the far right, among Islamist extremists and on the radical left. She goes on to describe “modern, progressive antisemitism” as its most pervasive manifestation in Australia, arguing that extremist ideas gain respectability through the language of human rights and social justice.

Antisemitism can certainly masquerade as anti-Zionism. Jewish Australians must never be held responsible for the actions of Israel’s government. Conspiracy theories about Jewish power, harassment and threats against Jewish people or institutions are indefensible.

Some extremists may exploit concern for Palestinian human rights to promote antisemitism, and I acknowledge that some institutions have become hostile environments for Jewish people. But to suggest that concern for human rights is being exploited by radical activists as a “gateway” to draw well-meaning Australians towards anti-Jewish propaganda strikes me as too simplistic.

Segal’s analysis gives insufficient weight to another explanation. Many mainstream Australians are genuinely distressed by the suffering of civilians in Gaza and attacks on Palestinian communities in the West Bank. Their concerns are often shared by Israelis who protest their own government’s policies in harsh terms. These reactions arise from what people have witnessed and their sense of injustice, not necessarily from extremist influence or manipulation.

Nor should the language of human rights be treated with suspicion. Allegations of war crimes, collective punishment, discrimination, ethnic cleansing or worse raise serious questions of international law that must remain open to evidence, debate and scrutiny.

Criticism of Israel can cross into antisemitism, and vigilance is essential. But distinguishing prejudice from legitimate political criticism, as Segal herself acknowledges, is equally important.

That distinction is important when considering her recommendations for stronger institutional regulation and restrictions affecting protest. Threats, intimidation, hate and unlawful vilification must be confronted, and existing laws must be effectively enforced. But any additional restrictions on political expression must be demonstrably necessary, proportionate and consistent with democratic freedoms.

There is much in Segal’s report that deserves support. Jewish Australians should feel safe and welcome in workplaces, universities, hospitals, cultural institutions and in public life. Protecting them from discrimination, harassment and violence should unite Australians across political divisions.

But sincere humanitarian concern and susceptibility to antisemitic narratives are not the same, even where they may overlap. Confusing them risks misunderstanding the motivations of ordinary Australians and alienating potential allies in confronting antisemitism.

A successful national response must protect Jewish Australians without casting suspicion on legitimate concern for Palestinians. It should uphold human rights consistently, defend freedom of expression and confront prejudice wherever it appears.

The strongest answer to antisemitism is not to narrow the space for disagreement, but to build a shared commitment to human dignity, equality and freedom from hatred and violence.