If a Zionist Feels Uncomfortable it must be Antisemitism
JVL Introduction
Nick Reimer read all 756 pages of transcripts from Australia’s antisemitism Royal Commission. It’s an invaluable source for understanding how pro-Israel politics is being constructed and defended at the present moment, rhetorically, ideologically, emotional.
Reimer discovers a document fuelled by the prior conviction that criticism of Israel is prima facie driven by antisemitism. The Commission was so desperate to ensure that its world view was not shaken that it would not hear from anyone who called themselves non-Zionist, let alone anti-Zionist. They ensured their findings would not upset any supporter of Israel by uncritically adopting the IHRA working definition of antisemitism as its loadstone.
The report is of little help in developing our understanding of the real problem of antisemitism and how to challenge it. However, as Reimer explains, it is an excellent primer of how the Zionist view of the world is constructed and defended.
This article was originally published by Overland on Fri 29 May 2026. Read the original here.
MC
Zionism in real-time: insights from the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion
Loading article text…
Many thanks for your succinct and informative description of the Commission report so far.
What a sad day it is when personal prejudices are allowed to overrule common sense and will surely not help our world to become a better place.
Perhaps someone will also add that the combination of identity of being Jewish and being Israeli are sometimes so blended such that a feeling of being targeted as a Jew is actually not the motivation behind anti-Zionist campaigning.
It is hard not to use the ‘yes, but…’ argument and it is how we try to justify understanding and present our own opposing argument – but open, two way conversation and listening to all sides is the only way to move forward. If we ignor or suppress opinions it can only lead to anger from impotence.
Here in the UK we now have the largest number of pensioners imprisoned for peacefully demonstrating against what they believe is a genocide. How are our governments being complicit in this against the will of the people? Where is the open discussion? Ignorance abounds.
I pray for open hearts to help move the world towards a better understanding of compassion towards others suffering.
@Ezzett Jane Brent Neither pensioners nor anyone else has been imprisoned ‘for peacefully demonstrating against what they believe is a genocide’
Many have been arrested and are facing trial for holding placards saying ‘I oppose genocide: I support Palestine Action’. No trials have yet been heard pending the Judicial Review of the banning of Palestine Action. Even if the trials go ahead, although the offence potentially carries a 6 month sentence it is highly unlikely that anyone will be imprisoned for this.
what Ezzett Jane Brent probably meant by ‘imprisoned’ was that a number of pensioners were forcibly removed by police from demonstrations for infringing against the law for openly supporting Palestine Action, a proscribed organisation under the 2000 Terrorism Act. They were “fleetingly deprived in of their liberty” while being charged. The High court subsequently ruled the proscription unlawful in February. The government appealed against that ruling, and that appeal has been granted. In the interim, the courts have ruled that the proscription remains legally in force until the appeal process has run its course.
I find this ruling rather odd, counterintuitive:
the ban has been adjudged UNLAWFUL by the High court
the ban REMAINS IN FORCE pending appeal
the government has no incentive whatsoever to expedite the appeal because the ban remains in force
this is an instance of” justice delayed is justice denied”
the UNLAWFUL proscription should be set aside pending the outcome of the appeal
if the appeal by the government FAILS, will the putative defendants have grounds to sue the government/Home Office for inter alia
reputational damage
stress owing to a vexatious, groundless appeal…?
this is a case of the Labour government shooting itself in the foot, again
Palestine Action should never have been proscribed under the 2000 Act
[this was done to appease [le mot juste] the neo-Kahanist Zionist Coalition in Tel Aviv]
the government doubled-down and appealed the High court finding, instead of stopping digging a hole for themselves.