‘Dangerous’ narrative reducing Zionism to colonialism ‘justifies violence’, expert tells anti-Semitism inquiry

Peace between Israelis and Palestinians is prevented by treating Zionism as “nothing other than a form of western colonialism”, a hate inquiry has been told. This same narrative also “justifies the use of violence”, the leader of a UK Jewish charity has claimed. The Royal Commission on anti-Semitism and Social Cohesion convened early on Thursday morning to hear evidence from Community Security Trust director of policy Dave Rich MBE, who has written an expert report on his thoughts on anti-Semitism and how it has manifested in society. He called claims that Zionism is just western colonialism a “historically wrong” and “quite dangerous” narrative, telling the hearing that Jewish people have an ancient and legitimate connection to the land. “Jews were always living in the land of Israel … they were refugees fleeing anti-Semitism who were pushed out, squeezed out of their own home societies,” Dr Rich said while dialling in on an audiovisual link from London. “So historically the argument doesn’t stand up … The danger of it is in kind of modern radical left theory …(that) colonisers can never have rights.” Speaking of Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, he said the towns attacked were not in legally disputed territory but there was a sentiment of “Well what do they expect? They’re colonisers”. “It’s a narrative that prohibits compromise, it mitigates against the idea of working for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and it justifies the use of violence against Israeli citizens within Israel itself,” he said. “Therefore in this thinking anyone who supports Israel in the west … is therefore a coloniser … a racist … can be excluded, can be attacked, can be demonised.“And that’s what we see happening to a lot of Jewish people now.” Holocaust used in political debate ‘wrong’: hate inquiry He branded the use of the Holocaust in political debate as “wrong”, saying that he struggled to think of scenarios where comparing Israel to Nazis could not be considered anti-Semitic when cross-examined extensively by Peggy Dwyer SC, who appeared on behalf of the Jewish Council of Australia. She asked him whether classing comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany as anti-Semitism depended on circumstances and nuance. “I think the starting point is that it usually is anti-Semitism … it’s hard to think of situations where it wouldn’t be,” Dr Rich replied. Dr Dwyer prefaced the questions by saying the organisation had cautioned against the use of Nazi symbology but wanted to ensure legitimate criticisms of Israel were not “weaponised”. Ultimately agreeing that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism definition made it clear that drawing comparisons to Israel’s policies and Nazis may not classify as anti-Semitism, Dr Rich said he found the use of the Holocaust as a “political tool” in debates “wrong”. “There are many other historical comparisons that could be used,” Dr Rich said. He said the Holocaust has been used in the context of Israeli politics frequently but it takes on a different meaning when used in other contexts. “Once you take that outside of that arena it starts to have a very different meaning,” he said. While the comparisons may be “wrong” and “extremely sensitive”, they are not necessarily anti-Semitism, which is an important distinction to make, Dr Dwyer submitted. “That’s true but … usually they could reasonably be regarded as anti-Semitism,” he replied. He previously told the hearing anti-Semitic claims pinning Jewish people as the modern day Nazis are “hurtful” and “completely distorting the history of the Holocaust”. “It takes that Jewish pain and it turns it against Jews,” he said. Dr Rich argued it included the subliminal message that “we don’t have to care about the Holocaust anymore”. “So it’s hurtful and harmful to Jews, it’s historically incorrect ... completely distorting the history of the holocaust … it also undermines the core values of society,” he said. Expert defends ‘vague’ anti-Semitism definition Dr Rich defended the IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism, describing it as a guiding tool to identify cases of Anti-Semitism. The IHRA defines anti-Semitism as: “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of Anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The organisation also includes a series of examples to help guide people in determining anti-Semitism. Dr Rich told the hearing a common understanding and definition of anti-Semitism could help inform policymakers and would make recognising and tackling anti-Semitism easier. “If governments are going to develop policies and measures to tackle anti-Semitism, there has to be a common understanding of what anti-Semitism is,” he said. He rejected submissions the definition is has “serious flaws” as Dr Dwyer suggested it was “vague”, with Dr Rich replying that “flexibility” is crucial. He earlier described it as “a set of lights to guide you on your path as an investigator” when determining whether an incident is anti-Semitic. “It places a lot of responsibility on the person to exercise their judgement in order to assess every case on its merit,” he said. “Anti-Semitism is a very serious allegation to level … I think it’s right and fair and accurate to judge every case on its merits.” He also batted away suggestions that the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism may be a better tool to use, telling the hearing it is “much longer” and impractical. “Could the safety officer at the MCG, who’s got a complaint of anti-Semitism … use the declaration as a helpful practical tool?” he said. “That stadium safety officer would get about a third of the way through and give up.” Anti-Semitism a conspiracy theory damaging democratic values Dr Rich also told the hate inquiry anti-Semitism was a “common feature” of religious and political extremism, describing it as something “anti-democratic” that damaged core values of liberal democracies. He told the royal commission at its core anti-Semitism was a “conspiracy theory” that held Jews responsible for everything happening in the world. “It reinforces conspiracy theory interpretations of the world, of society, it undermines trust in institutions and trust in authority,” he said. “The growth of anti-Semitism, the spread of anti-Semitism from the fringes of the society in the margins to the mainstream should be a huge alarm call for everybody who cares about liberal democracy, about truth, about the rule of law, trust in institutions and about social cohesion.” Dr Rich’s evidence concluded the first block of hearings in the royal commission, with the second block due to begin on May 25. It will examine the circumstances surrounding the alleged terror attack that killed 15 innocent people on December 14, 2025 at Bondi.