Dedicated to healthcare workers around the world who take a stand against genocide.

By Andrew Klein

I. Introduction: A Dangerous Precedent

On 17 June 2026, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) announced it had adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism to guide its regulatory work. Ahpra CEO Justin Untersteiner stated the agency is “committed to working with the Special Envoy for Antisemitism and partners to eliminate antisemitism from the health system”.

This announcement represents a significant and deeply concerning expansion of regulatory power. The IHRA definition is contested worldwide—seven of its eleven illustrative examples concern Israel, raising legitimate fears that it conflates criticism of Israeli policy with antisemitism. The Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) has warned that the move could “silence health professionals from criticising Israel’s human rights record”.

This paper examines the influence of the antisemitism envoy, the lack of evidence for antisemitism in the healthcare system, the powers of Ahpra, and the broader pattern of Zionist influence over Australian institutions.

II. The Special Envoy: Power Without Accountability

Jillian Segal AO was appointed as Australia’s first Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism in July 2024. Her role is to “assist and advise Government” by providing advice to the Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs and promoting public awareness of antisemitism.

She has no legislative power to compel any institution to do anything. Her role is advisory.

Yet Segal has demanded sweeping legal and institutional changes that were never debated in Parliament. As one commentator noted, “This isn’t policy, it’s a Kafkaesque nightmare”. Her recommendations include:

· Stripping funding from universities that fail to act on antisemitism

· New hate speech laws criminalising promotion of racial hatred

· Expanded powers to cancel visas

· New rules to address online hate

The irony is stark: Australians were asked to vote on same-sex marriage and the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, but on the question of whether speech critical of a foreign state should be criminalised, “we are not asked. There is no referendum, no transparency and no democratic process”.

III. The IHRA Definition: A Contested and Weaponised Tool

The IHRA definition states: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews”. The controversy lies in its illustrative examples—seven of eleven relate to Israel.

The definition has been condemned by its own author. Kenneth Stern, the lead drafter of the IHRA definition, has become one of its most vocal critics, calling its application “a disaster” for democracy and likening the current climate to McCarthyism. When ABC Radio put this criticism to Segal, she dismissed it: “That train has moved on… and Kenneth Stern has been left behind”.

The Australian Parliament has received numerous submissions highlighting the definition’s dangers. One submission notes that the IHRA definition “dangerously conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism” and “promotes a dangerous ‘Israel Exceptionalism‘, granting the state undue immunity from accountability for heinous crimes“. The submission further notes that the International Court of Justice has found South Africa’s claim that Israel is violating the Genocide Convention “plausible” and declared Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories “unlawful”.

IV. The Evidence: What Antisemitism in Healthcare?

Ahpra’s adoption of the IHRA definition implies a significant problem with antisemitism in the Australian healthcare system. The evidence suggests otherwise.

According to Ahpra’s own testimony before a Senate committee, of 225 complaints accusing health practitioners of antisemitism or Islamophobia since October 2023, approximately 200 were closed with no regulatory action. Only 13 complaints resulted in regulatory action, including three tribunal referrals.

Most complaints were about health workers posting on social media—not about their practice. This suggests the problem is not widespread antisemitism in healthcare, but rather the weaponisation of the complaints process to silence political expression.

As APAN noted, healthcare workers have reported “fear of professional consequences for speaking publicly about Gaza and Palestine“. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has raised concerns about “frivolous or vexatious complaints” to the health regulator about social media posts opposing Israel’s war in Gaza.

V. Ahpra’s Powers: An Odious Overreach?

Ahpra is Australia’s health practitioner regulator, responsible for ensuring practitioners are “qualified, competent, and safe to practice”. It has significant powers, including:

· Issuing public statements about practitioners under investigation

· Imposing sanctions before wrongdoing is confirmed in cases of “serious risk to public safety”

· Issuing interim prohibition orders against unregistered persons

The question is whether Ahpra should be using these powers to police political speech. The answer is clear: no.

Ahpra’s role is to protect public safety—not to enforce political orthodoxy. Using a contested, weaponised definition of antisemitism to investigate healthcare workers for their political views is an odious overreach that threatens:

· Freedom of speech—healthcare workers should be able to speak out against genocide without fear of professional consequences

· Medical ethics—doctors have a duty to speak out against violations of medical neutrality and attacks on healthcare

· The integrity of the complaints process—the weaponisation of complaints undermines trust in the regulator

Untersteiner acknowledged concerns about the “weaponisation of the notifications process” and stated Ahpra is reviewing its vexatious notifications framework. This is insufficient. The adoption of the IHRA definition itself is an act of weaponisation.

VI. The International Context: BMA and the Israeli Medical Association

While Ahpra is adopting the IHRA definition to police political speech, the British Medical Association (BMA) has taken a different path. In July 2025, the BMA voted to suspend engagement with the Israeli Medical Association (IMA) until it “affirms medical neutrality and condemns attacks on healthcare in Gaza”.

The IMA has described attempts to suspend it from the World Medical Association as “setting an extremely dangerous precedent”. The WMA itself has opposed the initiative.

The contrast is instructive. The BMA is taking a stand against the IMA’s failure to uphold medical neutrality. Ahpra, by contrast, is taking a stand against healthcare workers who criticise Israel’s actions. One is a stand for medical ethics. The other is a stand for political conformity.

VII. The Geopolitical Context: Genocide and Complicity

The adoption of the IHRA definition must be understood in the context of Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza and Lebanon. Health officials have reported that Israel’s war on Gaza has killed more than 73,000 Palestinians, including thousands of healthcare workers.

Ahpra’s move comes at a time when the Australian government is investigating the treatment of Australians who were part of a humanitarian flotilla intercepted by the IDF. This appears to be “string pulling and the pre-emptive victim theatrics so beloved of the Zionist political movement“—short on facts, it makes up with noise and threats to personal standing and income streams.

The Australian government has already legislated sweeping hate speech laws following the Bondi terror attack, which killed 15 people at a Hanukkah event. These laws grant powers to list “hate groups” and cancel visas. ASIO chief Mike Burgess conceded the laws would likely see such groups “simply move underground”.

VIII. Conclusion: A Choice Between Democracy and Censorship

The adoption of the IHRA definition by Ahpra represents a dangerous precedent. An unelected envoy, with no legislative power, has pressured a regulatory agency to adopt a contested definition that has been condemned by its own author. The evidence for antisemitism in healthcare is thin, and the definition itself is a weapon to silence political speech.

Healthcare workers should be able to speak out against genocide without fear of professional consequences. Medical ethics demand nothing less. The weaponisation of antisemitism to silence critics of Israel is not just an attack on free speech—it is an attack on the integrity of the medical profession itself.

The Australian government is currently investigating the treatment of Australians who were part of a humanitarian flotilla intercepted by the IDF. This investigation must proceed without prejudice, and the findings must be made public. The adoption of a contested definition of antisemitism by a health regulator should not be used to pre-emptively discredit the findings.

Australia’s healthcare system must be a place of healing, not a place of political policing. The use of a weaponised definition of antisemitism to silence healthcare workers must be rejected.

Andrew Klein

Dedicated to healthcare workers around the world who take a stand against genocide.

References

1. Ahpra. (2026, June 17). Eliminating antisemitism in healthcare. Joint statement with Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism. 

2. Iran slams Australia for targeting doctors criticizing Israel’s war crimes in Gaza, Lebanon. Press TV. (2026, June 20). 

3. Ore, A. (2026, June 20). Fears doctors criticising Israel may be silenced as health watchdog adopts contested antisemitism definition. Guardian Australia / NewsBreak. 

4. ABC News. (2026, January 21). New hate laws have passed parliament. What do they actually do? 

5. Pearls and Irritations. (2025, July 18). Antisemitism, free speech and a dangerous redefinition: How one envoy is rewriting the rules. 

6. AusDoc. (2026, February 17). 201 complaints to AHPRA about anti-Semitism or Islamophobia closed without sanctions.

7. Submission to Senate Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities. (2024). Parliament of Australia. 

8. Australian Government. (2025, December 18). Special Envoy’s Plan to Combat Antisemitism. Joint media release. 

9. Australian Government. (2025). Terms of Reference: Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism. 

10. The Guardian. (2025, July 10). Australian envoy’s antisemitism plan criticised as ‘Trumpian’ over concerns changes could be used to silence dissent. 

11. ABC News. (2025, July 10). Antisemitism plan would strip funding from unis, arts events who fail to fight Jewish hate. 

12. The New Arab. (2025, July 4). UK doctors call on BMA to cut ties with Israeli medics over Gaza. 

13. Ynetnews. (2025, July 3). British Medical Association members call to suspend ties with Israel over Gaza war. 

14. Jewish News. (2026, June 15). World Medical Association condemns attempt to suspend Israeli Medical Association. 

P.S. — Healthcare workers who take a stand against genocide deserve protection, not persecution.