'It would take a matter of days to complete that genocide'

Q: From a government funding perspective, are there any discussions or thoughts around, you know, changing that? If universities and particularly professors are being antisemitic are there any talks of anything happening  to manage that?

Alex Ryvchin: We’ve been working with campuses at many levels for a very long time to try to impact on what’s happening, both prior to October 7 and certainly since. And even something as basic as the adoption of a universal definition of antisemitism – a non-binding definition – so they can better understand antisemitism and then formulate policies to address it, we have been met with organised opposition every step of the way. We’ve found it extraordinarily difficult to achieve this. 

But we’ve had certain successes, particularly at UNSW, and we will keep fighting, but it’s difficult. Our students feel besieged. The impact of those outside the university to impact the university itself is limited as well. But this is where, as I said, across all sectors where Jews have influence we need to bring that influence to bear. Whether it’s through the academics who are on campus, donors, other contributors to universities in various forms, there needs to be a price to be paid for being an antisemite. And that’s what has to be done now.

“We’ve been engaging with UNSW and other universities for a long time to alert them to what’s happening, to alert them to how Jewish students are feeling, the sort of activism that is happening particularly since October 7, those atrocities, and a lot of academics inciting further hatred against the Jewish student population. And we’ve had a pledge that the IHRA definition will be adopted as policy in the new year, which is a welcome thing. 

There are many good people at universities – at VC level, academics – who don’t want this, who don’t want to see a segment of their student population marginalised in this way. They don’t want to see an escalation to the point that we have this sort of shame and disgrace that we’ve seen at US university campuses, with all the consequences – students choosing not to go there, donors choosing to pull their money out. No one wants that sort of thing. It’s now playing out in the arts sector, for example, in Australia as well. It’s a question of integrity. Will the decent people, and there are plenty, stand up to this scourge and stand up for the future and the integrity of their institutions?

Today with anti-Zionists, most anti-Zionists will have no concept of what they actually oppose. They would not be able to define what Zionism is, certainly not in the way that we as Zionists would define it: as support for the right of the Jewish people to exercise national self-determination in some part of our ancient homeland.

Instead, they would give the Jews, the Zionists, all the qualities that were historically given to the Jew: arrogance, bloodlust, an obsession with domination and power, a malevolent control of politicians and media, and a thirst for the blood of the innocents. And in what they say, in what they’re seeking, and in the ferocity and intensity with which they express their views, suddenly becomes indistinguishable from antisemitism. Because a Jew by any other name is still a Jew, whether the term ‘Zionist’ or other euphemisms are used.

We see a repetition of certain arguments and slurs directed at the Jewish people at this time – Judy spoke about some of these – particularly the accusation of genocide. 

I don’t believe in talking points; I don’t believe that there’s an easy sheet of bullet points that can debunk every argument that is put. I believe in real knowledge. And I want to talk about a couple of the most prevalent pernicious accusations against the Jewish people right now, and one is that claim of genocide.

Now, the value of words, over time, has become so debased and degraded that they have been stripped of all meaning. But they still retain some of their potency. When people accuse Israel of genocide, it carries weight and meaning. It is a way to convey certain feelings and emotional associations with the conduct of Israel and our support for Israel here in Australia.

The term ‘genocide’ was coined after the Holocaust. We as a people know genocide better than anyone. It was defined by a Polish lawyer called Raphael Lemkin. Now, the term ‘genocide’ is a Greek word; ‘genos’ means ‘race’, ‘cide’ means ‘to kill’. It means, literally, the extermination of an entire race. 

Now, if we understand that and we apply that to what is happening now, I think it’s pretty clear pretty quickly how ludicrous that accusation is. You have a situation where the population of Gaza, in the words of our accusers, are kept in a concentration camp or an open-air prison, with no control over their own lives and absolute vulnerability. On the other side you have one of the most powerful armies in the world which has the intention of genocide – to exterminate the entire race.

So the death toll from the war – the operational methods of the IDF – are entirely incompatible with any notion of genocide. To speak absolutely bluntly, if you had a population in the state that it is described by our opponents, and an army of the status and power that we know Israel is, it would take a matter of days to complete that genocide. And the fact that we’re sending in our best and brightest to fight in booby-trapped alleys, in tunnels, to save civilian life, shows how absolutely untenable this notion of genocide is.

Another common argument we hear, even by well-meaning individuals who will concede that the October 7 events occurred and were atrocities, is that we need to look at the root causes. As Antonio Gutierres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, said: ‘this did not occur in a vacuum’. 

Now, this is a moderate argument and one that is seductive in numerous ways. It’s the sort of argument that we also heard after September 11, where claims were made that America brought this upon itself with its foreign policy. 

There’s a logical flaw in this argument because it supposes that individuals that would fly planes into buildings, individuals that would rape, torture, burn, abduct and murder en masse, can be persuaded by policy adjustments and by reason. 

The people that committed these acts were driven by an extreme ideology, and in fact, their actions justify retrospectively the steps taken by Israel to protect its civilian population. The blockade imposed from 2007 is now proven to be just and necessary in light of the threat posed by Hamas. Likewise with the security barrier in the West Bank.

The main thing that I’ve seen change that needs to change, from this conflict compared with all others, is the posture of the Jewish community; our approach. We’re not getting pushed around anymore. We’re now seeing consequences levied against those who take action and stand against our people; who turn on us in our darkest hour; who deny the atrocities committed against us. 

If we have influence in certain segments of society, whether it be business, the arts, the legal community, academia, it is because that influence has been earned through our blood and through our toil. And it is time, I believe, to exert that influence.

We each have choices. People exercise free will and a choice to attend a rally and chant racist slogans. They exercise free choice to protest against us; to spread disinformation, hatred and antisemitism online.

And we too have a choice. We have a choice who we employ; who we associate with. If you’re the partner at a law firm and you see an applicant has engaged in this sort of conduct, don’t employ them. If you’re a builder and you see a subcontractor has engaged in antisemitism, don’t work with them. This is the time that consequences need to be exerted for what is happening. There needs to be a price for being an antisemite.

Q: From a political leader perspective – again, I’m sure you’re having lots of interactions, and varied ones as well – we’re definitely seeing, again, varied levels of antisemitism, whether it’s implicit or explicit. Do you think our politicians are doing enough? And if they are, what are the things they’re doing well? If they’re not, what are the things they need to do better at?

Alex Ryvchin: It’s a very challenging question. Again, there’s a spectrum there. I would isolate one individual who has been exemplary and that’s our Premier here, Chris Minns. I think he’s been unbelievable. Everything from when [we] had the ‘gas the Jews’ shame on the steps of the Opera House [note – a NSW Police investigation concluded “with overwhelming certainty” that this phrase was not chanted in widely circulated footage of the protest] – that was an operational failure of police that allowed that to happen, that allowed the march when the sails of the Opera House were being illuminated that night. Chris Minns could have shifted blame onto the police or to his minister; he didn’t. That was an act of leadership.

If you look at the words of the Prime Minister he has been very consistent, very consistent in supporting Israel at this time, both in the immediate aftermath of October 7 and since. Despite certain developments about voting at the UN General Assembly, about a ceasefire, the position of the Australian government remains to not support a permanent and unconditional ceasefire. Their position is that Hamas must be destroyed – ‘dismantled’ in their language, which means it has to be destroyed, there’s no other way to dismantle it – and they’re calling for the unconditional release of every hostage, which is very much aligned with our community’s position as well. Anthony Albanese has been strong in denouncing antisemitism and in appearing in public in doing so.

But there are certain, I suppose, elements of what he said that I think undermine the strength of the message. There’s a tendency to insert Islamophobia into every condemnation of antisemitism, which I think is wrong for numerous reasons. They’re two totally unrelated hatreds in terms of manifestations and origins. By doing so it tends to pit the Jewish community against the Muslim community as enemies, as rivals, which exacerbates conflict in our society, and it denies the uniqueness of our suffering at this time. 

So that is lamentable, but we’re not gonna always get everything that we want. I think that overwhelmingly there is support for our community at a leadership level. We’ve engaged with the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Home Affairs Minister almost daily since October 7, and I feel that the support is strong. We were concerned that as time passed from October 7 that support would start to fracture within the party and dissipate. That hasn’t really occurred.

 “In my work I’ve sat across from many politicians [and] civil society leaders who have tweeted horrible things, signed horrible petitions. And when you sit across [from] them and ask them and poke them and scrutinise their conduct, half the time they wilt and crumble, express embarrassment and regret. 

“There’s always a spectrum. Some are more hardcore and firm in their views and unpersuadable. Others are going along for the ride. So it’s very important to reach out to people and give them a chance to explain themselves and to reform. There’s no sense in being vengeful for the sake of it.”

Q: You mentioned art. The art industry, there seems to be a prevalent wave of antisemitism coming through there. Why? What’s happening? How is it being managed?

Alex Ryvchin: To the question of why, it’s happening everywhere, but in certain sectors it’s gonna happen more. And those that are more, I suppose, left-leaning, more prone toward activism, it will happen there more so than in others, and the arts is one of those battlegrounds. We saw this with the Sydney Festival a couple of years ago, what happened there. We saw [it] with the Adelaide Writers Festival, the horrific actions of Louise Adler in inviting overtly antisemitic speakers to appear at that festival. So this has long been a battleground and we as an organisation have been fighting there, have been across it for a long time. 

But again, you know, the Jews are disproportionately represented in the arts, as patrons and as donors. And just as an actor has the right, I suppose, to wear a keffiyeh, a Jewish patron or donor has the right to say, ‘I’m not gonna put my money [here]. Why would I? Why would I go to the arts, to a show, and be subjected to seeing individuals wearing the symbol of those who just committed a mass atrocity against our people?’ So this is a time for actions. And, you know, many good people, Danny Grimberg was one, spoke out publicly [and] articulated why he won’t be supporting the Sydney Theatre Company anymore. It’s his right to do so, and I commend him for it.

Q: How do we address teachers’ union comments in a staff community where message groups are well-educated individuals but have extremist views? Trying to elicit sympathy for Gaza and, you know, some of them don’t even acknowledge October 7. How do we tackle this antisemitism in government and non-Jewish schools, as well?

Alex Ryvchin: I think it’s gotta be handled in a number of ways and through every avenue that’s available to us. One is legal. If laws have been broken in terms of duty of dare, in terms of providing a safe environment for students and teachers, there have to be legal consequences. 

Another should be through government, you know – by speaking, as we have done, to state and federal education ministers so they can speak to boards of education and send very clear messages that this sort of conduct is unacceptable. 

And the third avenue should be from within the forum itself. For every teacher that wants to don a keffiyeh and marginalise their Jewish students, there should be a dozen decent, moral – not Jewish, not Zionist – teachers, but merely people who are concerned for the integrity of the profession and the safety of the school environment to speak out against it. And the failure to do so is a colossal moral failure which, as I’ve said, affects the institution and the profession more than anything else. So we need to pursue all those fronts and ensure that maximum pressure is brought to bear.

Q: Do you have a comment on why anti-Israel sentiment is particularly associated with the progressive left?

Alex Ryvchin: Historically it’s a curious thing, because when Israel was first formed in 1948 it had the backing of the patron of the global left, which was the Soviet Union. It was supported unanimously by communist parties throughout the world. They viewed it as a victory of anti-colonialism; of an indigenous people returning to their land; of a small, plucky fighting force of kibbutzniks and Holocaust survivors standing up to mightier foes, and that’s something that plays into the narrative and the mindset of the left.

But as time went on in the 1950s and ‘60s and the Soviet Union saw that Israel was more Westward-looking in its outlook, more closely linked to Western democracies and the United States, the Soviet Union turned all of its power, all of its capacity for propaganda, all of its ingrained antisemitism, and began spouting this at the United Nations. And that led to the Zionism is Racism Resolution of 1975. It began pumping it out through communist parties throughout the world, and we see the legacy of that in leftist movements today – on campuses, in the cultural space and elsewhere. 

It’s kind of the endpoint of a long process, but many on the left maybe don’t realise how conditioned they are by that long-term propaganda. And some will simply look at the fact that, you know, they view Israel as more powerful. They like the optics of the Palestinians as being a besieged, beleaguered, smaller power. 

But people need to look past these things, shallow things, and look at the causes of the conflict and the rights and wrongs of the conflict. No true progressive person could look at Hamas, which is a violent jihadist organisation; which laughs at everything progressive people hold dear; which just carried out the most horrific atrocities against women and children and civilians. No true progressive person can support that or remain silent in the face of it.

One of the good things that has happened from all of this, one of few good things, is that a lot of things have been laid bare and made clear to us – who’s with us, who’s against us, who’s a sincere moral human being and who’s a complete hypocrite – and in that camp you would have the Australian Greens, for example, who have bungled and shown confusion and moral fog all the way through to astounding degrees. It says everything about their ideology, how they view our community, and how compromised they are in their worldview.

Q: And we’re hearing more and more noise, and rightly so, around the fact that the world, and particularly women’s advocacy groups, have really gone silent in regards to the shocking sexual violence that [has] occurred. Why do you think that’s happening?

Alex Ryvchin: I would put it down in one word to antisemitism, but it requires an explanation. One of the ways that antisemitism has worked as I spoke about at the outset is that it creates a certain perception of Jews. And that perception today is that Jews are uniformly white, powerful, privileged, wealthy, all these things. So if you’re a progressive activist, you have no interest in defending people who are privileged, powerful, white, and all of these things. 

“It’s of course, that whole concept of the Jew is based on ignorance and antisemitism, you know. I mean, the notion that Jews are white – we’ve been massacred and persecuted for not being white. We’re a people of the Levant, genetically. Israel is predominantly ethnically Middle Eastern rather than European – it’s just all nonsense and you can debunk it in numerous ways. But as to the question of why, it is because of this perception of the Jews in a certain way, which is so powerfully ingrained in the Western consciousness, that they are incapable of breaking out from that and actually seeing the Jews as victims of crimes against women, crimes against children and mass atrocities. They’re not capable of doing that.