Preamble
In remembrance of my family affected by the Holocaust, I stand firmly for Israel’s right to exist in peace within its borders. Equally, I advocate for the Palestinian people’s right to life, freedom and self-determination.
Introduction
In recent years, the phenomenon of cancel culture has evolved into a powerful tool for silencing dissenting voices, often wielded by those in positions of influence to enforce ideological conformity. Traditionally associated with progressive groups targeting conservative or controversial figures, a new iteration of cancel culture has emerged, one that disproportionately targets left-leaning advocates, particularly those expressing solidarity with the Palestinian cause. In Australia, this shift has become increasingly evident, as pro-Palestinian speech is met with accusations of antisemitism, public shaming and institutional repercussions. Republican officials and right-wing commentators in the United States have set a precedent for this tactic, conflating support for Palestinian rights with extremism or terrorism. This essay explores how these dynamics have manifested in Australia, examining the mechanisms of suppression, the misuse of antisemitism accusations and the broader implications for free speech and democratic discourse. Drawing on global parallels, particularly from the US, it analyses how the term “intifada” and other expressions of Palestinian solidarity are being weaponised to delegitimise activism and how this reflects a broader effort to criminalise and punish pro-Palestinian sentiments in Australia.
The Global Context: Cancel Culture and Pro-Palestinian Speech
The current wave of cancel culture targeting pro-Palestinian advocates can be traced to the escalation of the Israel-Gaza conflict, particularly following Hamas’s attack on Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023. The attack, which killed over 1,200 Israelis and involved the abduction of approximately 200 others, provoked widespread outrage and condemnation. However, the subsequent Israeli military response, which has resulted in over 54,000 Palestinian deaths according to Gaza’s health ministry, has fuelled global protests and renewed calls for Palestinian rights. In the US, Republican officials have capitalised on the initial outrage to frame pro-Palestinian activism as inherently antisemitic or supportive of terrorism. For instance, Senator Marco Rubio’s resolution in October 2023 equated criticism of Israel with “subtle anti-Semitism,” while Senator Tom Cotton compared a CIA official’s display of a Palestinian flag to Nazi symbolism. Similarly, Representative Elise Stefanik’s interrogation of Harvard President Claudine Gay in December 2023 falsely equated the term “intifada” with a call for genocide, a claim that went unchallenged and amplified the narrative that pro-Palestinian speech is inherently dangerous.
This strategy relies on a deliberate conflation of terms and intentions. The word “intifada,” meaning “uprising” or “rebellion” in Arabic, has been used to describe Palestinian resistance movements, notably the First Intifada (1987–1993), which was largely non-violent, involving protests, strikes and boycotts and the Second Intifada (2000–2005), which saw significant violence, including suicide bombings. While the term carries different connotations depending on context, its use in pro-Palestinian activism often signifies resistance to occupation, not an endorsement of violence. By misrepresenting “intifada” as a call for genocide, critics exploit its ambiguity to silence activists, a tactic that has gained traction beyond the US
Cancel Culture in Australia: The Weaponisation of Antisemitism
In Australia, the suppression of pro-Palestinian speech mirrors these global trends, but is shaped by the country’s unique political, media and cultural landscape. Since the onset of the current Israel-Gaza conflict, Australian institutions, media outlets and political figures have increasingly targeted pro-Palestinian advocates, often under the guise of combating antisemitism. This has created a chilling effect, where individuals and groups face public backlash, professional consequences and institutional censorship for expressing solidarity with Palestinians.
One high-profile example occurred at the Sydney Theatre Company (STC) in November 2023, when actors Harry Greenwood, Megan Wilding and Mabel Li wore keffiyehs – traditional Palestinian scarves – during a performance of Chekhov’s The Seagull. The actors, gifted the keffiyehs by a Palestinian artist affiliated with the STC, intended the gesture as a symbol of solidarity with Gaza’s civilians. However, the act triggered an immediate backlash, with pro-Israel patrons accusing the company of antisemitism and demanding refunds for tickets and subscriptions. The Australian newspaper led a campaign that, according to journalist Laura Tingle, mobilised “the full power of the media and arts funding establishment” to censure the actors. The STC issued a public apology, distancing itself from the actors’ actions and effectively capitulating to the pressure. This incident illustrates how even symbolic gestures of support for Palestinians can be misconstrued as antisemitic, leading to institutional self-censorship and public shaming.
Similarly, journalists and media professionals have faced repercussions for criticising Israel’s actions in Gaza. In 2023, hundreds of journalists from outlets like the ABC, Guardian Australia, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age signed an open petition condemning Israel’s suppression of press freedom and calling for unbiased coverage of the conflict. In response, managers at The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age suspended signatories from reporting on the conflict, while the ABC and Guardian Australia issued warnings against further public criticism. The Australian labelled the petition “anti-Israel,” conflating criticism of Israeli policy with antisemitism. This not only silenced journalists, but also reinforced a narrative that pro-Palestinian advocacy is inherently biased or extremist.
Political and Institutional Responses
Australian political figures have also played a significant role in delegitimising pro-Palestinian speech. The adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism by various Australian institutions has been particularly contentious. The IHRA definition includes examples of antisemitism that equate criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish hatred, such as “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” or “applying double standards” to Israel. While intended to combat genuine antisemitism, this definition has been criticised for its potential to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policies. In Australia, it has been used to justify disciplinary actions against academics, students and public figures who express pro-Palestinian views.
For instance, in 2023, Liverpool Hope University postponed a talk by Israeli-British historian Avi Shlaim, whose work challenges Israel’s official historical narrative. The decision was made without public explanation, but it followed pressure from pro-Israel groups citing the IHRA definition. Similarly, pro-Palestinian student groups at Australian universities, such as the University of Sydney and the University of Melbourne, have faced suspensions or funding cuts for organising protests or divestment campaigns against companies complicit in Israel’s occupation. These actions are often justified by vague accusations of “promoting hate” or “violating campus safety,” echoing the US tactic of framing pro-Palestinian activism as a threat to Jewish students.
The Australian government has also contributed to this climate of suppression. In March 2024, a young Australian journalist was questioned and deported after writing critically about Israel, an incident that raised alarms about the erosion of free speech. Posts on X highlighted this case as part of a broader trend of targeting dissent under the pretext of combating extremism. The government’s rhetoric, often aligning closely with US and Israeli positions, has further emboldened efforts to criminalise pro-Palestinian activism. For example, statements from political leaders condemning pro-Palestinian protests as “divisive” or “antisemitic” have provided cover for institutional crackdowns, despite the protests often focusing on humanitarian issues like Gaza’s blockade or civilian casualties.
The Misuse of “Intifada” and Other Terms
The misrepresentation of the term “intifada” has also found resonance in Australia, where it is frequently invoked to demonise pro-Palestinian activism. During pro-Palestinian rallies in Sydney and Melbourne, chants of “intifada, intifada” have been met with media outrage, with outlets like The Australian and Sky News Australia framing the term as a call for violence or terrorism. This mirrors the US congressional hearing where Elise Stefanik equated “intifada” with genocide, a claim that distorts the term’s historical and cultural significance.
As noted earlier, “intifada” refers to an uprising or rebellion, a concept rooted in resistance to oppression. The First Intifada was characterised by non-violent tactics like boycotts and strikes, though it faced violent repression from Israeli forces. The Second Intifada, while more violent, was a response to decades of occupation and failed peace negotiations. In Australia, pro-Palestinian activists use “intifada” to express solidarity with Palestinian resistance, not to endorse violence. However, media and political narratives often ignore this context, presenting the term as evidence of extremism. This deliberate mischaracterisation serves to delegitimise protests and justify their suppression, much like the US strategy of linking Palestinian advocacy to Hamas.
Other terms, such as “from the river to the sea,” have been similarly weaponised. In Australia, this phrase, which expresses a vision of Palestinian liberation across historic Palestine, is often labelled antisemitic for allegedly implying the destruction of Israel. Yet, for many Palestinians and their supporters, it represents a call for equality and justice, not the erasure of Jewish presence. The selective outrage over these terms, while ignoring inflammatory rhetoric from pro-Israel figures – like calls to “flatten Gaza” or resettle Palestinians – reveals a double standard that prioritises one group’s sensitivities over another’s.
The Chilling Effect on Free Speech
The cumulative effect of these tactics is a profound chilling effect on free speech in Australia. Activists, students, artists and journalists increasingly self-censor to avoid accusations of antisemitism, which can lead to professional ruin, social ostracism or legal consequences. Palestine Legal, a US-based organisation, has documented how accusations of antisemitism or supporting terrorism deter activists from speaking out, a phenomenon that is equally relevant in Australia. Students at Australian universities, for instance, report fears that their activism could jeopardise future job prospects or travel opportunities, particularly given the IHRA definition’s broad application.
This climate of fear is exacerbated by the media’s role in amplifying antisemitism accusations. Outlets like The Australian and Sky News Australia frequently publish editorials that conflate pro-Palestinian activism with extremism, creating a feedback loop where public opinion is shaped to view such activism as inherently suspect. The suspension of journalists who signed the 2023 petition, coupled with the STC actors’ censure, sends a clear message: expressing solidarity with Palestinians carries significant risks.
Moreover, the institutional response to pro-Palestinian activism often bypasses due process. University suspensions, event cancellations and employment terminations are frequently justified by vague or unsubstantiated claims, leaving little room for appeal or dialogue. This mirrors the US experience, where students and faculty face disciplinary proceedings for activities as benign as organising divestment campaigns or displaying Palestinian flags. In Australia, the lack of robust legal protections for free speech – unlike the US’s First Amendment – makes it easier for institutions to enact such measures without scrutiny.
Broader Implications for Democratic Discourse
The suppression of pro-Palestinian speech in Australia has far-reaching implications for democratic discourse. By framing criticism of Israel as antisemitic, authorities and institutions undermine the ability to engage in nuanced discussions about one of the world’s most contentious conflicts. This not only stifles advocacy for Palestinian rights but also erodes the broader culture of free expression, as individuals learn to avoid controversial topics altogether.
The conflation of antisemitism with pro-Palestinian activism also risks diluting the term’s meaning, making it harder to address genuine instances of anti-Jewish hatred. Antisemitism is a real and serious issue, as evidenced by incidents like the 2023 threats against Jewish students at Cornell University or the rise in hate crimes following October 7. However, equating it with support for Palestinian rights trivialises the experiences of Jewish communities while silencing Palestinians and their allies. In Australia, this dynamic is particularly harmful to Palestinian-Australian and Muslim-Australian communities, who already face systemic discrimination and are disproportionately targeted by accusations of extremism.
Furthermore, the selective outrage over pro-Palestinian speech reveals a hierarchy of acceptable discourse. While pro-Israel advocates, including those who endorse extreme measures like Gaza’s blockade or settler violence in the West Bank, face little scrutiny, pro-Palestinian voices are held to an impossibly high standard. This double standard is evident in the lack of backlash against Australian politicians who align with Israel’s far-right government, such as those who defend ministers like Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, both sanctioned by several countries including Australia and the UK, for inciting violence against Palestinians. The absence of equivalent scrutiny for pro-Israel rhetoric underscores how cancel culture, in this context, serves to protect powerful interests rather than promote fairness.
Countering the Narrative: The Path Forward
Addressing the suppression of pro-Palestinian speech in Australia requires a multifaceted approach that prioritises free expression, challenges misinformation and fosters open dialogue. First, there must be a concerted effort to decouple criticism of Israel from antisemitism. This involves educating the public about the IHRA definition’s limitations and advocating for clearer distinctions between anti-Jewish hatred and political critique. Civil society organisations, like the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, can play a key role in this by providing resources and legal support to those targeted for their activism.
Second, media outlets must be held accountable for their role in perpetuating biased narratives. Independent journalism, supported by platforms like Transcend Media or Al Jazeera Australia, can counter the mainstream media’s tendency to conflate pro-Palestinian activism with extremism. Encouraging journalists to report on the human cost of Israel’s actions in Gaza, without fear of retribution, is essential to restoring balance to the discourse.
Third, universities and cultural institutions must resist pressure to censor pro-Palestinian voices. This includes adopting transparent processes for handling complaints about activism and ensuring that disciplinary measures are based on evidence, not external lobbying. The STC incident, for example, could have been an opportunity for dialogue about the keffiyeh’s significance, rather than a capitulation to outrage.
Finally, political leaders must model a commitment to free speech by refraining from inflammatory rhetoric that vilifies pro-Palestinian activists. The Australian government’s alignment with US and Israeli positions should be scrutinised, particularly in light of international reports, like Amnesty International’s 2024 conclusion that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. By acknowledging these findings and engaging with Palestinian perspectives, policymakers can help de-escalate the polarisation that fuels cancel culture.
Conclusion
The resurgence of cancel culture in Australia, targeting pro-Palestinian speech, represents a troubling erosion of free expression and democratic values. By weaponising accusations of antisemitism and misrepresenting terms like “intifada,” critics of Palestinian advocacy seek to silence a movement that is fundamentally about justice and human rights. The parallels with US tactics, exemplified by figures like Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton and Elise Stefanik, highlight a global strategy to delegitimise solidarity with Palestinians. In Australia, this manifests through media campaigns, institutional censorship and political rhetoric that disproportionately punish left-leaning voices.
The consequences of this suppression extend beyond the Israel-Palestine debate, threatening the broader culture of open discourse. To counter this, Australia must foster an environment where criticism of any state, including Israel, is protected and where terms like “intifada” are understood in their historical and cultural context. Only by challenging the misuse of antisemitism accusations and amplifying marginalised voices can the country uphold its commitment to free speech and ensure that advocacy for Palestinian rights is not equated with extremism. As the Gaza conflict continues to claim lives and spark global protests, the fight for free expression in Australia remains a critical battleground for justice and democracy.
