The Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN), Australia’s peak representative body for Palestinians and their allies, is deeply disappointed at having been refused permission, not once but twice, to appear before the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.
APAN and the Palestinian solidarity movement it leads are routinely demonised as being antisemitic. Public debate around Palestine, Zionism and Israel is routinely misrepresented. The definition of antisemitism is distorted and weaponised in attempts to silence those who criticise Israel.
Hearing Block 1 which commences on Monday, 4 May 2026 will address, amongst other topics, the definition of antisemitism and manifestations of antisemitism. Despite providing detailed submissions and expert evidence which directly addresses these topics APAN has been refused permission to appear. The Commissisoner has ruled that APAN does not have a ‘direct and substantial interest’ in the topics of this hearing. This is confounding.
Despite the Commission’s stated aim of trying to understand factors contributing to rising antisemitism, APAN’s application to appear was rejected, even after submitting a detailed, 259-page submission supported by expert evidence from internationally renowned scholars Professor Shaul Magid, Professor Ilan Pappé and Professor Noura Erakat.
Excluding voices from the Palestinian community increases the very real probability of producing an incomplete and polarising account of the rise in antisemitism.
The accusations of antisemitism levelled at Palestinians and their supporters go to the heart of the inquiry. Indeed, the alleged perpetrators of the Bondi massacre were not from the pro-Palestine, anti-genocide movement in Australia, and yet within hours of their heinous act the movement and its supporters were being blamed.
APAN is deeply concerned that the inquiry will rely heavily on submissions equating criticism of Israel, Zionism and Israel’s actions in Gaza with hatred of Jewish people, without rigorous inquiry.
The failure to allow APAN to appear will mean the commission will not have a legitimate counter narrative to the one proffered by those seeking to criminalise the pro-Palestine movement.
APAN’s submission documents incidents of anti-Palestinian racism in Australia and outlines how mislabelling legitimate advocacy as antisemitic silences public discourse. It provides a relevant and useful history of Palestine and Palestinians, which is critical to understanding the solidarity movement as an anti-racist struggle for liberation. The group remains eager to provide evidence and contribute to the Commission if permitted.
Australians must be allowed to criticise Israel (today, an apartheid state) together with, the settler colonial ideology of Zionism upon which it is founded, its genocidal actions in Gaza, and its ongoing violence in and annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, without fear of prosecution or of being labelled an antisemite.
The Commission will not arrive at a nuanced understanding of the causes of antisemitism unless it grapples with the conflation of Zionism and Judaism and untangles the theory and practise of anti-Zionism (an anti-racist movement) from antiseminism. That risk is only compounded by the Commissioner’s hasty decision to apply the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism in investigating the nature and prevalence of antisemitism in Australia and making recommendations to governments.
Quotes attributable to Nasser Mashni, APAN President
“We are profoundly disappointed by this decision. The Australian Palestinian community and its allies deserve the same democratic access as any other group. Excluding our voices at a time when Palestinians face a surge in racism and vilification – as documented by the recent report from our anti-Palestinian racism register – sends a devastating and deeply alienating message about who belongs and who doesn’t and whose suffering counts and whose doesn’t. This is entirely inconsistent with and counterproductive to calls for social cohesion.”
“To equate criticism of a state ideology and its murderous and genocidal actions with hatred of a people is obscene. The refusal to hear evidence that distinguishes anti-Zionism from antisemitism creates the very real risk of turning this into a one-sided process rather than a genuine inquiry, with very serious ramifications for those who have been excluded, and more broadly, for the Palestinian struggle for liberation.”