How the Antisemitism Commission Divides Australia While Ignoring the Real Drivers of Hate

By Andrew Klein

6^th May 2026

Dedication: To my wife, who sees people and souls, not religions and labels.

In May 2026, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security convened the first hearing of what is colloquially being called an “antisemitism commission”. The government insists it is a genuine effort to understand the drivers of hatred and to protect Jewish Australians. But a closer examination reveals a very different picture: an inquiry carefully framed to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, to silence pro‑Palestinian voices, and to deflect attention from the government’s active military support for a state engaged in genocide.

This article does not question the reality of antisemitism. It does not minimise the suffering of Jewish Australians who have faced hatred and violence. What it does is examine the uses to which the commission is being put – and the dangerous pattern of suppressing dissent that it represents.

1. The Commission That Refuses to Look at Gaza

The committee’s terms of reference are striking for what they omit. There is no mention of Israel. No mention of Gaza. No mention of the distinction between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. Yet the overwhelming evidence is that the “sharp spike in antisemitism” is “clearly linked” to Israel’s wars in the Middle East, as Commissioner Virginia Bell herself has acknowledged.

Former High Court judge Bell has told the inquiry that the recent surge in antisemitic incidents is intimately connected to events in Israel‑Palestine. This is an inconvenient truth for the government. If the spike is linked to Israel’s actions, then addressing antisemitism would require addressing those actions – including the ongoing genocide in Gaza. The government has no interest in doing so.

Instead, the commission is encouraged to look everywhere except the obvious source. The Zionist lobby has long sought to exclude Israel from discussions of antisemitism, and the government has obliged. The result is an inquiry that can identify symptoms but never name the cause.

2. The Jewish Council of Australia – A Divergent Jewish Voice

The most significant fact obscured by the government’s framing is that Jewish Australians are not of one mind on Israel, on Gaza, or on the definition of antisemitism.

The Jewish Council of Australia (JCA) , founded in February 2024, provides a vital alternative to the established Jewish communal organisations that have long dominated public discourse. Led by human rights lawyer Sarah Schwartz and historian Dr Max Kaiser, the JCA is an ACNC‑registered charity committed to opposing antisemitism and racism while supporting Palestinian freedom and justice.

In 2025, JCA was granted leave to appear before the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, representing the diverse Jewish voices that are so often marginalised. As the organisation’s leadership has stated, “A core feature of antisemitism is the stereotyping of Jewish identity. When institutions treat Jews as a politically homogenous bloc, who all support Israel… they are themselves engaging in antisemitic stereotyping.”

The JCA has also been active in opposing the weaponisation of antisemitism accusations to stifle free speech on Palestine. In August 2024, it opposed the Coalition’s Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill, warning that the proposed legislation “could be used to justify policies which stifle free speech and academic freedom.” In April 2025, JCA organised a Melbourne screening of the Oscar‑winning documentary No Other Land – a film about Palestinian displacement co‑created by Palestinian and Israeli filmmakers – as a fundraiser for Palestine. The cinema cancelled the event after receiving 20 threats in a single day, yet the Zionist lobby’s campaign against the film was widely covered, while the threats were minimised.

The JCA has also raised funds for senior legal counsel to defend its anti‑racism work against smear campaigns in the Murdoch press. It is a modest, under‑resourced organisation that punches far above its weight, precisely because it speaks truth.

3. The Zionist Lobby – A Powerful Force for Conflation

By contrast, the established pro‑Israel lobby in Australia is exceptionally well‑resourced. The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) is described as “Australia’s AIPAC” – a reference to the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Its executive director, Colin Rubenstein, and its chairman, Mark Leibler, have operated at the centre of pro‑Israel influence in Australian politics for decades, with “a discipline and continuity that most political parties cannot match.”

AIJAC, along with the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) , actively monitors criticism of Israel and reacts quickly to suppress it. A 2018 study by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute found that AIJAC was the largest sponsor of non‑government funded trips for federal parliamentarians. In 2025, it protested when the Albanese government sanctioned far‑right Israeli ministers Itamar Ben‑Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich.

This same lobby has been a driving force behind the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism across Australian universities and institutions. The IHRA definition, as Amnesty International has noted, “has shamefully served as a weapon … of Israel through unfounded accusations of antisemitism.” It “tramples on fundamental rights to protest and freedom of expression.” The Universities Australia definition goes even further, stating that Zionism is a core part of Jewish identity for most Jewish Australians – and therefore criticism of Zionism is classed as antisemitism and prohibited.

This is the lobby’s triumph: to make criticism of a foreign state’s policies a punishable offence in Australian universities.

4. The Antisemitism Envoy – A Political Appointment, Not a Defender of Jews

The government’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, is a career Israel lobbyist born in apartheid South Africa. Appointed in July 2024, she has an established record of defending and supporting Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Critics have noted that Segal’s role is a political ruse. During a Senate Estimates hearing in December 2025, Greens Senator David Shoebridge pointed out that Segal had refused to comment on neo‑Nazi violence in August 2025, while simultaneously advocating for the banning of peaceful pro‑Palestinian rallies. She has urged all Australian institutions to adopt the contested IHRA definition, which conflates anti‑Zionism with antisemitism. She has recommended cutting funding to universities that do not comply.

When neo‑Nazis overran a protest in Melbourne in August 2025, Segal declined to comment, stating that she didn’t want to comment on any particular incident. Yet she has been willing to advocate for the movement of all pro‑Palestinian protests out of city centres. Australia’s first “antisemitism envoy” has thus proved most comfortable hunting anti‑Zionist speech rather than actual neo‑Nazis marching in the streets.

5. The Suppression of Pro‑Palestinian Speech – A Pattern of Control

The damage is not theoretical. In early 2026, the NSW Parliament passed the Hate Speech and Vilification Amendment Act, explicitly prohibiting “knowingly inciting hatred” against Jewish people. The law was rammed through without referral to a parliamentary committee, ignoring the NSW Law Reform Commission’s advice against new vilification crimes. Civil liberties groups have warned that the racial vilification offence is “overly broad, and will capture legitimate political debate, like criticism of Israel or Zionism.”

At the federal level, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 proposes significant reforms to address antisemitism, hate speech, extremist organisations, and visa cancellation powers. The Human Rights Commission has warned that these reforms must remain “proportionate, clearly defined and consistent with Australia’s human rights obligations.” But the pattern is clear: new powers are being created to police speech, and they are most likely to be deployed against critics of Israel.

The Secure Our Schools program, which has been running for more than a decade, has distributed about 60 % of its total grants to Jewish schools. This funding is not in itself objectionable – all schools deserve safety. But when considered alongside the absence of equivalent protections for other communities, and the refusal to extend the Vilification Act’s protections equally, the pattern is unmistakable: one community’s security is privileged above all others.

6. The State of Israel – A State Without Borders, Sustained by Genocide

Any honest discussion of antisemitism in Australia must recognise a central fact: the state of Israel has no internationally agreed borders. It is a country whose very existence is contested, and it has responded to that contestation with decades of military occupation, settlement expansion, and – in Gaza – what the International Court of Justice has found it “plausible” amounts to genocide.

The current Israeli government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu and including far‑right ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben‑Gvir, has openly embraced the ideology of “Greater Israel.” On 12 August 2025, Netanyahu declared his deep personal connection to this vision, which would extend Israeli control from the Jordan River to the Euphrates, encompassing parts of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. Finance Minister Smotrich has spoken of expanding Israel’s reach “to Damascus,” and the government has been described as one “formed around the notion that land is holier than life, that theocracy comes instead of democracy.”

The “Greater Israel” project is not a fringe fantasy. It is the stated policy of the governing coalition. As one analysis put it, “the project is already in its advanced stages – the Judaization of the Palestinian interior, settler expansion in the West Bank, and the open war of extermination in Gaza.”

Israel’s commitment to this expansionist project is matched by its commitment to shaping the global narrative. In 2025, reports revealed that Israel had quadrupled its hasbara (public diplomacy) budget, allocating NIS 2.35 billion (approx. US$729 million) to propaganda efforts, up from NIS 545 million (US$150 million) the previous year. The Israeli government has also spent at least €42 million (approx. US$49 million) on advertising campaigns across YouTube and X since mid‑2025, with much of that expenditure targeted at European audiences to downplay the famine in Gaza.

If there were no problem with Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people – if it were not an apartheid regime, if it were not engaged in years of violent oppression – this vast expenditure on narrative control would be unnecessary. That Israel bothers to maintain such a complex, well‑resourced, and globally focused propaganda operation is itself evidence of a deep problem.

7. Arms Sales – Australia’s Complicity

Despite government denials, Australia is actively supplying military components to Israel. In August 2025, Defence Minister Richard Marles insisted that Australia does not supply weapons to Israel, while conceding that the export of “component parts” was “a separate issue.” But critics have pointed out that “parts of weapons are weapons.”

The ABC has reported that the federal government has upheld dozens of military export permits to Israel throughout the war in Gaza, raising fresh questions about Australia’s weapons transfers. Leaked shipping records show that in September 2025, Australia sent an “Inlet Lube Plate” for the F‑35 Joint Strike Fighter to Israel, classified as “Military Goods – Aircraft parts.”

This is not a semantic distinction. Australian components are being used in Israeli military systems that are actively involved in the Gaza genocide. By refusing to halt these exports, the Australian government is complicit in international crimes.

8. The Question of Dual Loyalty

The Israeli government and its Australian lobbyists have worked hard to present Israel as the “ultimate safe haven” for the Jewish people. This claim is not merely false – it is dangerous. Every time the state of Israel commits a war crime, that act exposes Jewish people around the world, including in Australia, to criticism and resentment that they did nothing to earn.

Moreover, the claim of Israel as a “safe haven” raises a legitimate question of dual loyalty. If individuals are willing to support a state that is actively committing genocide – and to pressure the Australian government to support that state – what does that mean for their loyalty to Australia? If the state of Israel were to declare Australia a threat, what actions would such individuals be prepared to take?

These questions are not antisemitic. They are the same questions that would be asked of any group that prioritised loyalty to a foreign power over loyalty to the country where they live.

9. No Alliance, Just Extraction

The myth of a “special relationship” or “shared values” between Australia and Israel is carefully cultivated by the lobby. But there is no formal defence treaty between Australia and Israel. There are routine government‑to‑government and commercial relationships – nothing more.

What Australia receives in return for its political support and military exports is unclear. What is clear is that the benefits accrue primarily to the arms manufacturers and to the political donors who fund the lobby. The Australian people gain nothing from the genocide in Gaza, and they lose much – moral standing, social cohesion, and the freedom to criticise a foreign state without fear of legal sanction.

10. What Is to Be Done?

The government’s antisemitism commission is a dangerous screenplay – a performance of concern that divides the community while refusing to address the underlying causes of rising hatred.

We can do better. We must:

1. Distinguish clearly between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. The IHRA definition should be rejected in its current form, and Universities Australia should repeal its prohibition on criticism of Zionism.

2. Support diverse Jewish voices – including the Jewish Council of Australia – rather than allowing a handful of pro‑Israel organisations to speak for all Jews.

3. Demand that Australia halt all military exports to Israel, immediately and unconditionally.

4. Repeal the new hate speech laws that have been rushed through without proper consultation, or at the very least extend their protections equally to all communities.

5. Recognise the state of Palestine, as the international community has repeatedly urged, and support the ICJ’s rulings against Israel.

6. Stop using antisemitism as a political shield for the support of a government engaged in genocide.

Conclusion

The Albanese government’s antisemitism commission is not a genuine effort to understand hatred. It is a carefully stage‑managed exercise designed to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, to silence pro‑Palestinian voices, and to deflect attention from Australia’s complicity in a genocide.

The tragedy is that genuine antisemitism is real. It deserves to be confronted – not weaponised. The government’s approach does not protect Jews. It divides the community, chills free speech, and serves the interests of a foreign lobby.

We are not fooled. We see the screenplay for what it is. And we will continue to speak the truth – about Israel, about Gaza, about the misuse of antisemitism for political ends – no matter how loudly the lobby shouts us down.

References: A Dangerous Screenplay

1. Parliamentary Inquiry – Terms of Reference

· Parliament of Australia (2026). Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security – Inquiry into Antisemitism: Terms of Reference. Available from the Australian Parliament House website.

2. Commissioner Virginia Bell’s admission of link to Middle East

· Australian Associated Press (AAP) / News Corp Australia (May 2026). Antisemitism spike ‘clearly linked’ to Israel’s wars, inquiry told. (Various news outlets; original hearing transcript pending publication.)

3. Jewish Council of Australia (JCA)

· Jewish Council of Australia website (2024–2026). Mission statement, registration details, public statements. ACNC registered charity.

· ABC News (February 2024). New Jewish Council of Australia launches to offer ‘alternative voice’ on antisemitism and Palestine.

· JCA submission to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion (2025). Intervention of the Jewish Council of Australia.

· JCA media release (August 2024). Jewish Council of Australia opposes Coalition’s Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill.

· JCA fundraising campaign (April–May 2026). Fundraiser for senior legal counsel – successful as reported in email to supporters.

4. AIJAC and Zionist Federation of Australia

· Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) (2018). Same, same but different: Diaspora lobbying and the influence of AIPAC and AIJAC.

· The Australia/Israel Review (AIJAC publication). Various issues documenting parliamentary trips and advocacy.

· The Australian (2025). Reports on AIJAC protest against sanctions on Ben‑Gvir and Smotrich.

· Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) website. Policy positions, submissions on IHRA definition.

5. IHRA Definition and Universities Australia

· International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) (2016). Working definition of antisemitism (including examples).

· Universities Australia (2025). Guidelines on addressing antisemitism on campus.

· Amnesty International (2022). Briefing to UN Human Rights Council: The IHRA definition and the weaponisation of antisemitism.

· Palestine Australia Solidarity Group (PASG) reports (2025–2026). Documentation of university disciplinary actions against pro‑Palestinian students.

· Australian University Free Speech Network (2025). Complaints and evidence of speech suppression.

6. Jillian Segal – Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism

· Prime Minister’s Office media release (July 2024). Appointment of Jillian Segal as Special Envoy.

· Senate Estimates Hansard (December 2025). Exchange between Senator David Shoebridge and Jillian Segal regarding neo‑Nazi violence and pro‑Palestinian rallies.

· The Guardian (August 2025). Antisemitism envoy declines to comment on neo‑Nazi protest.

· Jillian Segal’s public recommendations (2025). Calls for universities to adopt IHRA definition, funding cuts for non‑compliance.

7. Hate speech laws – NSW, Victoria, Queensland

· NSW Parliament (early 2026). Hate Speech and Vilification Amendment Act 2026. See also NSW Law Reform Commission report (2025) advising against such laws.

· Victoria and Queensland legislation. Relevant sections of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic) and Anti‑Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) as amended.

· Guardian Australia (March 2026). Man arrested in Queensland for reciting ‘from the river to the sea’.

8. Secure Our Schools program funding

· Department of Education and Training. Secure Our Schools program data (multiple years). Analysis of allocation of grants (available via FOI and media reports, e.g., The Age, 2025).

9. State of Israel – Borders, Greater Israel, government extremism

· United Nations Security Council resolutions. Multiple resolutions (e.g., 242, 338) noting lack of agreed borders.

· Benjamin Netanyahu speech (12 August 2025). Address to the Knesset declaring his deep connection to the “Greater Israel” vision.

· Bezalel Smotrich statements (various). Calls for expanding Israeli control to Damascus.

· Amnesty International (2022). Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians.

· B’Tselem (2021). A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

10. Hasbara (propaganda) budget

· Haaretz (December 2025). Israel quadruples hasbara budget to NIS 2.35 billion.

· The Times of Israel (January 2026). Knesset approves dramatic increase in public diplomacy spending.

· Campaign Against Antisemitism / Tech Transparency Project (2026). Investigation into Israeli government spending on YouTube and X advertising (€42 million, US$49 million).

11. Australian arms exports to Israel

· ABC News (August 2025). Richard Marles says Australia does not supply weapons to Israel – but does not deny component parts.

· ABC News (September 2025). Leaked shipping records show Australia sent F‑35 parts to Israel during Gaza war.

· Defence Export Control Office (2025–2026). Permitted military export licences to Israel (partial release under FOI).

12. No defence treaty between Australia and Israel

· Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). List of bilateral treaties – no defence pact with Israel.

· Parliamentary Library (2025). Australia‑Israel relations: A brief overview.

13. Lattouf case

· Federal Court of Australia (June 2025). Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation – judgment finding unlawful termination due to external pressure.

· The Guardian (June 2025). ABC’s sacking of Antoinette Lattouf was unlawful, court finds.

14. Additional references for the points on dual loyalty and genocide (internal context)

· International Court of Justice (ICJ) orders (26 January 2024, 24 May 2024). Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).

· United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Reports on Gaza, West Bank, and settler violence (2024–2026).

How Language, Trade and Shared History Expose the “Clash of Civilizations” as a Colonial Myth

By Andrew Paul Klein and Sera Elizabeth Klein

Long‑standing colleagues and co‑authors

I. The Triumph of Exchange Over Confrontation

Every few decades the West invents a new “great divide” to explain away its own wars and impoverishment of other peoples. In the 1990s Samuel Huntington gave it its most polished academic veneer: the coming conflict would not be ideological but civilisational, pitting monolithic, static cultural blocs against one another – “the West versus the rest”, with the Muslim world cast as a primary adversary.

Yet the very evidence that Huntington and his admirers ignored tells a radically different story. From the fertile crescent of Mesopotamia to the silver cups of Bronze‑Age Iran, from the conquest of the Americas to the multilingual reality of modern Europe, the history of language and culture is not a story of inevitable clashing, but of constant borrowing, translating, adapting and mixing. The “clash” is not written in stone; it is manufactured, weaponised and sold to publics whose own daily lives are saturated with the products, words and thoughts of the very civilisations they are told to fear.

II. The Deep Past: Scripts Without Borders

In 2022 an international team of epigraphers announced the partial decipherment of Linear Elamite, a writing system used in what is now southern Iran between roughly 2300 and 1880 BCE. For more than a century the script had resisted all attempts at decoding. The breakthrough came when François Desset and his colleagues realised that Linear Elamite was not an isolated invention: it was adapted from the cuneiform writing of neighbouring Mesopotamia, and its decipherment was made possible by bilingual inscriptions that used the well‑known Akkadian language as a key.

“Civilisations” did not sit in hermetically sealed boxes, waiting to collide. They learnt from each other, exchanged scribes, adopted useful tools and adapted them to their own tongues. The very act of writing itself – the foundation of recorded history – is a testament to cross‑cultural borrowing.

III. English: A Frankenstein Tongue (and Proud of It)

For an example much closer to home, look at English. It began as the language of Anglo‑Saxon tribes who arrived in Britain around 400 CE. Within centuries it had been invaded, enriched and reshaped by Old Norse (the language of Viking raiders), by Latin (the tongue of the Church and scholarship) and, most dramatically, by Norman French. After 1066 French became the language of the royal court and the ruling elite; Old English survived “among the peasants”.

But rather than disappearing, English absorbed its conquerors’ words – not just “beer”, “city” and “fruit”, but abstract concepts such as “liberty” and “justice”. Later it borrowed from Hindi (“pajama”, “thug”), from Arabic (“sugar”, “algorithm”) and from Nahuatl (“chocolate”, “avocado”, “tomato”). The language that today’s “clash of civilisations” ideologues speak is a hybrid, a living museum of centuries of peaceful and violent contact. If there were ever a genuine “clash”, English would have disappeared long ago; instead, it became the world’s most successful global lingua franca because it never stopped borrowing.

IV. The Colonial Assault on Language – And the Scarring of Souls

The “clash” narrative becomes truly dangerous when it is used to justify colonial extraction and the suppression of other peoples. In Mexico the Spanish conquest did not simply defeat the Aztec empire; it imposed the Castilian language as a tool of domination. Nahuatl, once the language of a sophisticated civilisation, was systematically pushed to the margins. For most of the 20th century the official policy of “bilingual education” was not about preserving indigenous languages but about assimilating native peoples at the cost of their own cultures – a direct assault on the soul of a people.

The same pattern repeated itself across the globe: the “Scramble for Africa”, the British in India, the Dutch in Indonesia, the French in Indochina. In every case the coloniser’s language was made the key to advancement, and the colonised were told that their own tongues were backward, their thoughts less worthy. That is not a clash of civilisations; it is a one‑sided war waged against the identity of the colonised, and its wounds remain open today.

V. Israel / Palestine – A Case Study in Manufactured Division

Nowhere is the bankruptcy of the “clash of civilisations” thesis more evident than in the story of modern Hebrew and Yiddish, and the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

The suppression of Yiddish

For centuries Yiddish was the everyday language of millions of Ashkenazi Jews – a rich, expressive tongue that developed through contact with German, Slavic and Hebrew elements. With the rise of political Zionism, however, Zionist activists in Mandatory Palestine actively sought to eradicate Yiddish, banning it from theatres, films and cultural activities in order to promote Hebrew as the sole national language. As one scholar put it, “in the early 20th century, Zionist activists… tried to eradicate the use of Yiddish among Jews in preference to Hebrew, and make its use socially unacceptable”. After the establishment of Israel, the government pursued a “melting‑pot” policy, requiring every immigrant to adopt Hebrew and often a Hebrew surname, while Yiddish was actively discouraged.

This was not an inevitable product of some “clash” between Hebrew and Yiddish; it was a deliberate political choice to create a unified national identity by erasing a vibrant diaspora culture. The wound has never fully healed, and Israeli society remains ambivalent about its Yiddish heritage.

The erasure of Palestinian identity

At the same time, the Arabic language of the indigenous Palestinian population was relegated to a secondary status. The British Mandate formally recognised English, Arabic and Hebrew as official languages, but the political and economic system systematically favoured Hebrew and English, marginalising Arabic. The Nakba of 1948 and the decades of occupation that followed were not “clashes” but planned dispossessions – a colonial project dressed in the language of self‑defence and civilisation.

The numbers today

The consequences are visible in Israeli public opinion. A November 2025 survey found that 70% of Israelis oppose the creation of a Palestinian state – a figure that rises to 79% among Jewish Israelis. A March 2025 poll by Tel Aviv University revealed that 62% of Jewish Israelis support “evacuating Palestinians from Gaza, even by force and military means”, while 70% of Jewish respondents said that if Gazans leave, Israel should not allow their return at all. Such attitudes are not the result of some eternal, inevitable clash; they are the product of a deliberate political strategy of dehumanisation, enacted through language, education and the relentless repetition of victimhood.

Meanwhile, the genocide in Gaza continues to unfold. The International Court of Justice has ruled that it is “plausible” that Israel’s acts amount to genocide and has ordered Israel to immediately halt its military offensive in Rafah. The Israeli government, backed by Western powers, has ignored those orders – and the same Western leaders who denounce Russia’s invasion of Ukraine refuse to apply the vocabulary of “war of aggression” or “genocide” to their own ally. This is not a clash of civilisations; it is the operation of power, politics and profit, dressed in the language of a civilisation it is actively betraying.

VI. Deconstructing Huntington’s Flawed Paradigm

Huntington’s thesis has been subjected to devastating criticism from multiple angles. A 2024 study in Frontiers in Psychology found that states belonging to different civilisations are not significantly more conflict‑prone than those within the same civilisation. Other scholars point out that Huntington’s categories are static, ahistorical and deeply normative, treating “civilisations” as monolithic blocs while ignoring millennia of cross‑cultural exchange, intermarriage and trade. As one recent review noted, “the conflicts are obviously more contentious than the civilisations themselves”.

Perhaps most damning, critics have argued that the “clash of civilisations” narrative functions as a self‑fulfilling prophecy. When Western leaders frame the world in terms of civilisational enmity, they alienate potential allies, empower extremists on all sides and provide a convenient excuse for policies that enrich defence contractors and extractive industries. The goal is not to understand the world but to justify its further domination.

VII. Do We See a Pattern?

From the script‑borrowing scribes of Elam to the Norman‑French infused English of the Middle Ages; from the forced assimilation of Nahuatl speakers in Mexico to the deliberate suppression of Yiddish in Israel; from the marginalisation of Arabic in Palestine to the present‑day public support for ethnic cleansing – the common thread is not a “clash of civilisations”. It is the weaponisation of language and identity by elites who profit from division.

Those who benefit are the arms manufacturers, the propaganda‑funding lobbies, the real‑estate developers eyeing Gaza’s coastline, the politicians seeking to distract from domestic failures. The victims are ordinary people – Jewish families whose grandparents spoke Yiddish, Palestinian families living under siege, indigenous communities fighting for the survival of their tongues, and all of us who are told to hate people we have never met.

VIII. Conclusion: Choose Exchange Over Clash

The “clash of civilisations” is not an ancient inevitability; it is a modern political product – a weapon used to justify war, colonisation and extraction. The evidence of history, from the cuneiform tablets of Mesopotamia to the hybrid tongue of English, shows that civilisations grow not by staying apart but by exchanging, borrowing and adapting. Language is the conduit of that exchange; when it is suppressed, the soul is scarred; when it is allowed to flow freely, cultures flourish.

We do not need to accept the lie that we are fated to clash. We can choose to remember the centuries of shared knowledge, the translations that made science possible, the words that crossed continents and the love that refuses to be imprisoned by any manufactured fault line. We can build a world where the only “clash” that matters is between those who hoard power and profit and those who believe that every language, every culture and every child deserves to live, speak and dream freely.

Sources & References for the Article

Archaeological / Linguistic Sources

1. Desset, F., et al. (2022). The Decipherment of Linear Elamite. The article and the team’s subsequent publications demonstrate that the script was not an isolated invention but derived from Mesopotamian cuneiform, proving cross‑cultural borrowing in the Bronze Age.

2. Basello, G. P. (2022). How Many Signs? What Differing Sign Numbers Tell Us About the Writing of Linear Elamite. Further epigraphic analysis supporting the hybrid nature of the script.

3. Wasserman, N. (2020). The Amorite Language and Its Relationship to Cuneiform. Shows how a nomadic people adopted and adapted the writing system of settled neighbours.

Critiques of Huntington’s “Clash of Civilisations”

1. Huntington, S. P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order – the original thesis, which we critique.

2. Fox, J. (2022). The “Clash of Civilizations” 25 Years On: A Critical Review (Routledge Handbook of Political Islam). Summarises the main scholarly criticisms.

3. Bak, D. (2024). The Problematic Concept of Civilisation: A Critique of Huntington’s Theory. Argues that Huntington’s categories are static, ahistorical, and ignore millennia of cross‑cultural exchange.

4. Sell, S. (2024). Clash of Civilizations – A Self‑Fulfilling Prophecy. Examines how the narrative serves to justify Western military intervention and alienates potential allies.

English as a Hybrid Language

1. Baugh, A. C., & Cable, T. (2013). A History of the English Language (6th ed.). The classic text detailing the Norse, Latin, French and global borrowings that shaped English.

2. Durkin, P. (2014). Borrowed Words: A History of Loanwords in English (Oxford University Press). Traces the thousands of foreign origins of everyday English words.

🇮🇱 Hebrew, Yiddish and Israeli Public Opinion

1. Jewish Virtual Library (2026). Language in Israel: Hebrew, Arabic and English. Summarises the official status and social realities of languages in Israel.

2. Yiddish Book Center (2026). The Revival of Hebrew and the Suppression of Yiddish. Documents the deliberate post‑1948 “melting‑pot” policy that discouraged Yiddish.

3. Jerusalem Post (March 2026). Poll: 70% of Jewish Israelis Oppose Return of Gazans Who Leave. Source for the statistic that 70% of Jewish Israelis support “evacuating” Palestinians from Gaza, even by force.

4. Tel Aviv University / Lapid (November 2025). Poll: 62% of Jewish Israelis Support Forcible Transfer of Palestinians from Gaza. Source for the finding that 62% support removing the population.

5. Zeffit (March 2026). Poll: 70% of Israelis Oppose Creation of a Palestinian State. Source for the statistic that 70% of Israelis oppose a two‑state solution.

6. Yesh Din (2025). Data on Settler Violence and the Role of the State. Documents the systemic nature of the occupation.

ICJ Gaza Rulings

1. International Court of Justice (26 January 2024). Order on South Africa’s Request for Provisional Measures. The ICJ found it “plausible” that Israel’s acts amount to genocide.

2. International Court of Justice (24 May 2024). Order on South Africa’s Request for Additional Provisional Measures. The ICJ ordered Israel to immediately halt its military offensive in Rafah.

3. Amnesty International (2024). “You Feel Like You Are Dying”: Starvation as a Weapon of War in Gaza. Documents the use of starvation against civilians.

Colonial Language Suppression

1. Lewis, A. (2024). Nahuatl – A Language Lost in Translation. Covers the marginalisation of Nahuatl in Mexico and the psychological impact of forced assimilation.

2. Thiong’o, N. wa (1986). Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature. Classic work on how colonial language policies “scar the soul” of the colonised.

Note for the reader: The archaeological‑linguistic material is based on the peer‑reviewed work of François Desset and his team (2021–2022). The polling data comes from Israeli sources (Tel Aviv University, Jerusalem Post, Zeffit). The ICJ rulings are official UN court documents. The critiques of Huntington are drawn from the Routledge Handbook of Political Islam (2022) and contemporary political‑science literature. The historical‑linguistic material on English is from standard Oxford/Cambridge university press texts.