The ABC and SBS have been urged again to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, after letters published on May 19 backed the public broadcasters’ refusal to do so. The exchange turned a dispute over wording into a sharper argument about journalism, Israel and the limits of criticism.

The pushback drew a blunt response from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, which called it ludicrous. Bruce Hall said the ABC and SBS should be commended for resisting Jillian Segal’s demand that they adopt the definition, and warned that accepting criticism of Israel as antisemitic would undermine efforts to rid society of prejudice. He also said any move to withhold funds from the broadcasters for protecting their journalistic integrity would call Segal’s role as special envoy to combat antisemitism into question.

The letters sit inside a wider fight over how institutions should define antisemitism and whether criticism of Israel crosses the line. One writer argued that anti-Zionism is the newest form of Jew hatred. Another said the IHRA definition makes clear that criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. That same argument leaned on the definition’s growing international reach, saying it has been adopted or endorsed by 45 other countries, as well as the Council and Parliament of the European Union, the Organisation of American States and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

The dispute has already spread beyond the letters page. On May 19, the ABC and SBS were described as rejecting federal government, special envoy and royal commission-backed antisemitism wording, putting the broadcasters at odds with a campaign for a single standard. Last year, the University of Sydney spent nearly half a million dollars on a review to combat antisemitism, a sign of how far the issue has moved from academic debate to institutional policy.

What makes this fight hard to settle is that both sides are talking about harm, but they mean different kinds. Supporters of the IHRA wording say it provides a clear line for identifying antisemitism wherever it appears. Critics say that line is too easily used to shield Israel from scrutiny and to chill legitimate reporting and commentary. That is why the ABC and SBS decision matters now: it is not just about one definition, but about who gets to draw the boundary between prejudice and public debate.

For now, the broadcasters have held their ground, and the letters suggest the argument is far from over. The next test is whether institutions elsewhere follow the public broadcasters’ refusal, or decide that the cost of rejecting the IHRA wording is too high.