Nasser Mashni‘s APAN is whining that they have been excluded from the debate on social cohesion, after it was refused leave to appear before the royal commission on antisemitism and social cohesion.
This happened after they made a 259-page submission to the commission included testimony from As-a-Jew professors Ilan Pappe and Shaul Magid, as well as Noura Erakat.
Now I have argued on here repeatedly how the anti-Israel crowd in Australia, including Nasser Mashni himself, are guilty of antisemitism. I have based this on accepted definitions of antisemitism, primarily the IHRA working definition. But I decided, as an exercise, to analyze APAN’s submission and determine whether Mashni et al have violated even APAN’s own narrow definition of antisemitism.
The results might surprise you.
APAN’s Definition of Antisemitism
APAN explicitly defines antisemitism as:
“Hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.”
To understand how APAN interprets and applies this definition, APAN’s submission effectively rests on three core propositions:
- Strict separation of anti-Zionism from antisemitism: Zionism is a political ideology while Israel is a nation-state. Criticizing Israel cannot be deemed antisemitic unless there is clear evidence of underlying hatred or discrimination directed at Jewish people because they are Jewish
- The “Same Standard” Rule: The collective output of a political movement should be judged by the same standards applied to any other country. Structural critiques of Israel – even those that challenge its status as an ethno-religious state – are functionally identical to criticizing the political systems of other nations and should not be treated as an inherent manifestation of racial or religious prejudice.
- Opposition to classic antisemitic tropes: APAN explicitly states they oppose and condemn classic forms of antisemitism. This includes:
- Conspiracy theories regarding hidden Jewish power or control over media and governments.
- Holding domestic Jewish communities collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government or military.
- Expressing explicit hatred, hostility, or violence toward individual Jews or Jewish institutions (such as synagogues or schools) based on their identity
At the same time, their own expert, Shaul Magid, acknowledges that anti-Zionism can become antisemitic when “Zionism” is simply used as a substitute word for Jews, Jews are collectively blamed, or hostility toward Israel becomes hostility toward Jews generally.
Mashni Caught In a Trap of His Own Making
Here are some examples of where Nasser Mashni himself has violated even APAN’s concept of antisemitism.
Failing the “Discrimination Because They Are Jewish” Rule
Mashni was filmed at a rally in Melbourne, saying, “We’d also like to thank members of the Jewish community for standing here with us today… These are real Jews, not the filth we’ve got over there.”
Just a reminder that Nasser Mashni @iamthenas – who claims to not be antisemitic – is actually antisemitic pic.twitter.com/XMku6P4IQr
— David Lange (@Israellycool) May 28, 2026
This is abusive language directed at Jews as Jews, split into “good Jews” and “filth.” This fits even APAN’s narrower “Jews as Jews” standard.
As does Mashni reference to “filthy Zios.” “Zio” is not a neutral shorthand for “Zionist.” It is widely recognised as a slur that conflates Jewish identity with political support for Israel, and functions as a term of contempt directed at people partly or wholly on ethnic grounds. Under both the IHRA definition (which Magid critiques but does not wholly reject), and APAN’s more basic “Jew as a Jew” test, using a derogatory ethnic epithet is not political criticism of an ideology, but rather a hostile characterisation of people.
Furthermore, Mashni has contextualized the October 7, 2023 massacres as “a fight against oppression” and a component of a “liberation struggle”. He has liked tweets that ranged from justifying the attack to celebrating it, and liked a tweet painting all Israeli civilians – including Nova festival attendees – as legitimate targets.
While Mashni frames this strictly as anti-colonial resistance rather than anti-Jewish hatred, the reality of the October 7 attack was the mass slaughter of individuals based fundamentally on their Israeli-Jewish identity. By defining a targeted assault on a Jewish population center as a legitimate, non-racialized “fight against oppression,” I’d argue Mashni’s rhetoric actively excuses mass hostility against Jews, thereby breaching APAN’s foundational prohibition against condoning anti-Jewish violence.
I should also note that neither Pappe nor Magid argue that targeting civilians at music festivals is straightforwardly non-antisemitic political resistance.
Then there’s Mashni’s frequently leading public rallies in chants of “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” He defends this on social media as a “vision for a shared political reality beyond Israel’s current brutal colonial apartheid.” But the slogan inherently demands the erasure of Jewish sovereign institutions across the entirety of the geographic landmass. Stripping a specific ethnic and cultural group of their political agency and national home – even under the banner of a “shared state” – directly results in the structural discrimination and displacement of that group, running afoul of APAN’s stated opposition to religious or ethnic discrimination.
Failing the Same Standard Rule
APAN maintains that criticizing Israel is acceptable if it mirrors how one would criticize any other state. However, Mashni’s advocacy does not treat Israel as a standard nation-state with flawed policies; instead, his public positions treat the state’s very existence as uniquely illegitimate.
For example, Mashni explicitly opposes a two-state solution, calling the recognition of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel equivalent to partitioning South Africa during apartheid. But by advocating for the total dismantling of Israel rather than a change in its government or policies, his conduct departs from how APAN critiques other nations. In APAN’s framework, criticizing a state’s human rights record is political speech; however, systematically campaigning to deny one specific ethno-religious group their established state structure while supporting self-determination for others violates the principle of applying an even standard.
Failing the Antisemitic Tropes Rule
Mashni has repeatedly fall foul of this standard.
For example, in July 2022 on his radio show, Mashni claimed the world’s power structures “all focus upon Zionism”.
“The power structures that exist in the world all focus upon Zionism.
“Israel is the domino. Israel falls over, not just the Middle East – South America, the Africans, the world is a far better place once we destroy Western imperialist control of the world.”
Similarly, in March 2023, he referred to the Zionist lobby’s “grooming” of Australian politicians.
This clearly relates to “Conspiracy theories regarding hidden Jewish power or control over media and governments”, which Magid admits crosses the line into antisemitism.
As does Mashni retweeting content from Louise Adler framing the Australian Jewish community’s safety concerns as “the latest flex by the Jewish establishment,” comparing them unfavourably to First Nations people and describing them as “120,000 well-educated, secure and mostly affluent individuals.” Deploying Jewish wealth as a reason to discount Jewish fears of antisemitism invokes the classic trope of Jewish privilege overriding legitimate claims.
In other words, according to APAN’s own submission and narrowed definition, Nasser Mashni could not even clear the subterranean bar they set for themselves.
Click on the below to support out impactful work during our May campaign:
