Amnesty International has accused Austria of “anti-Muslim” and “anti-Palestinian racism” – as reported by exxpress. The Austria Broadcasting Corporation (ORF) immediately turned this into a headline story and adopted Amnesty’s position with virtually no criticism. This has now taken many by surprise.
Strictly speaking, in its highly controversial report, the NGO is primarily attacking Austria’s fight against anti-Semitism. Put bluntly, this implies that because Austria combats hatred of Jews, it discriminates against Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims. Critics see this as a dangerous distortion – and a worrying similarity to patterns of argumentation found in extremist circles.
Communication researcher and plagiarism watchdog Stefan Weber has reacted particularly strongly. Speaking to the exxpress, he commented: “The ORF report is neither impartial nor objective. It therefore constitutes a clear breach of the content-related programming principle set out in Section 10(5) of the ORF Act.” He continued: “The Amnesty International study addresses resentment arising from a current armed conflict exclusively from a pro-Palestinian perspective.”
His verdict on the data basis is even harsher. Amnesty based its findings on interviews with 19 anonymous “experts”. Weber comments: “Nineteen people were interviewed who were not even named. This has only marginally to do with science; it is propaganda.”
In the report, Amnesty also criticises the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This is an internationally recognised working definition of antisemitism designed to help identify hatred of Jews – including where it is expressed in relation to Israel. It does not claim that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, but it does state that it is anti-Semitic if, for example, the Jewish state is demonised, equated with the Nazi regime, or held to standards to which no other state is subjected.
Critics of Amnesty therefore argue that anyone who portrays the IHRA as a problem across the board is weakening an important tool against modern anti-Semitism. “Those who want to legitimise anti-Semitism at any cost and make it ‘respectable’ are currently targeting the IHRA definition once again,” comments an X-user.
In fact, Amnesty’s argument here overlaps with that of far-left and anti-imperialist circles. For instance, it disputes the anti-Semitic nature of denying Israel’s right to exist. Austria’s strategy, by contrast, maintains that Israel-related anti-Semitism occurs in all ideological circles and that anti-Zionism often serves as a cover. This is precisely what Amnesty’s Executive Director Shoura Hashemi objects to, noting, for instance, “that Austria and other European countries run the risk of instrumentalising and politicising anti-Semitism”.
Hashemi’s attempt to establish anti-Zionism as legitimate ‘criticism of Israel’ is entirely in line with the views of the far right, the far left and Islamists. Moreover, as Austria focuses so heavily on imported anti-Semitism, as the Amnesty director believes, this would “stigmatise Muslim and/or Arab people in Austria”, for instance through “negative stereotypes” and corresponding “exclusionary narratives”, as the ORF also uncritically reports.
Selektiv editor Christoph Hofer responds on X: “It is not discrimination to criticise the latent anti-Semitism of specific immigrant groups, which can be proven in countless studies on values.”
Amnesty’s stance on the BDS movement is similarly controversial. BDS stands for ‘Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions’ and calls for a boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. Amnesty argues that advocating for BDS should be protected.
In Austria, politicians take exactly the opposite view: in the National Council, all parties condemned BDS, and Reinhold Lopatka spoke of an “attack on Jewish life” – in the sense of “Don’t buy from Jews”. For critics, this shows that Amnesty is not merely opposing individual measures, but the fundamental political consensus in the fight against anti-Semitism.
Weber is not alone in his criticism. Other users on X are surprised that ORF has promoted the Amnesty report “unquestioningly to the top of the news” “without seeking a single alternative viewpoint”. The main criticism: the ORF has broadcast a politically charged report featuring just 19 interviews and virtually no opposing views – thereby creating the impression that the problem is not rising anti-Semitism, but Austria’s attempt to combat it.
ORF-Eklat: Österreichs Antisemitismus-Kampf plötzlich „Rassismus“? | Exxpress