Loss of world based order and Royal commission

The loss of a rules-based order and the Royal Commission

It is becoming clearer Trump considers the world to be divided into three hemispheres, dominated by the influence of America, Russia and China. Within the orbit of these hemispheres the rights or freedoms of independent nations, let alone individual peoples, are of no consequence. In this context, the rule of law, or international convention is irrelevant and the subject of ridicule.  Stephen Miller, US deputy chief of staff: “… we live, in the real world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power”.  Also, within these hemispheres, countries joined at the hip – Belarus with Russia, North Korea with China, Israel with the US – similarly do not consider themselves bound by the same international conventions.

Australia traditionally believes in a rules-based world order.  If the world we believe in no longer exists, in what do we place our trust?  What language do we use? Who defines hate speech? What does terrorism or antisemitism mean?

This is a concerning context, the medium-term outcomes of which are not predictable. Australians like to think we exist outside these so-called hemispheres, whilst acknowledging we are linked economically to two - America and China, and strategically to one - America.  Given America’s interests are not the same as Australia’s and that America under its current leadership is not bound by alliance loyalty, Australia is placed in a precarious position.  We must avoid language that pre-supposes America’s colonising interests are our interests and avoid America’s use of derogatory language to describe those who are in the way of its agenda. 

I want to avoid discussing the obvious comfort Trump’s actions and statements in Venezuela and Greenland have undoubtedly given Putin’s ambitions for Ukraine, and China’s ambition for Taiwan. Instead, concentrating on Netanyahu’s ambition in Palestine and its consequences for Australian dialogue and language post the Bondi massacre, indeed for the way a Royal Commission into hate and its attack of social cohesion, inclusive of antisemitism, is conducted in Australia.  We have recognised the legitimacy of Palestinian Statehood. Israel is now calling tenders for a massive construction in the Palestinian territories with the aim of destroying any hope for such a state. What is Australia doing in response? Recognition without action is meaningless.

In a world without a rules-based order two obvious dangers manifest themselves. On the one hand individuals or groups may decide to take matters into their own hands, with terrible results for themselves and for others. This was the route taken in Iraq by fallen Sunni leadership in the formation of ISIS.    The Jerusalem based Hebrew paper Haaretz suggests Ben Gvir and Smotrich, Knesset ministers of Security and Finance, are currently trying to provoke a Palestinian uprising so that they can respond with utter brutality and decimate what remains of Palestinian independent identity.

On the other hand, there is a danger that those who peacefully oppose the might of the strong will be labelled terrorists or, in Australia, antisemitic. With a different vocabulary but the same intent, Ukrainians who oppose Putin are called Nazis. I have made it clear to the Prime Minister that I will protest the impending visit to Australia of Isaac Herzog, the Israeli President. He has used his position to support the cruellest aspects of the Gaza campaign, even personally signing armaments to be used there.  I fully realise some will describe this action ‘antisemitic’.  It is not. 

We are told limitations on hate speech are to be legislated. The Australian Opposition led by Sussan Ley have said they wish to restrict such legislation to antisemitism and Islamic extremism. No mention of Islamophobia. Apparently hate speech is to be restricted to words or actions which oppose the will of the strong.

Israel has adopted, refined, perhaps ‘invented’, the Trumpian view that any activity that serves the self-interest of the strong needs no moral defence and should not be subject to external critique, least of all critique from the UN.

 In common parlance the term ‘terrorist’ is used to describe acts of violence from an external source with the intention of causing fear ad division.   Israel, the Zionist lobby, and their supporters use the term to refer to those in the Palestinian territories who oppose their agenda to colonise that which does not belong to them. I personally know a family that has been frequently in gaol, not for any violence but for resisting the seizure of their property.  They are called ‘terrorists’.  Children who throw stones are not ‘terrorists’. Their incarceration without trial is likely to push their brains toward a violent response.  Those outside Palestine who critique or oppose what under international law has been described as unlawful, are accused of antisemitic bias.

Daily, individual unarmed Palestinians in Gaza and on the West Bank are shot dead on the pretext they are terrorists. Just to be a Palestinian is apparently to be a terrorist. Herzog has referred to a ‘nation of terrorists’.  This characterisation is hate speech and dangerous. The language is deployed as an attempt to deflect the opposite truth; thousands of illegal Westbank settlers are the terrorists. They burn crops, confiscate land, demolish buildings and kill civilians.  Large sections of the IDF who use their deployment to protect and advance the terrorising activity of settlers are, by definition, also terrorists.
If Australians make the Herzog mistake, linking Australian Jews with the ills of Israel that would indeed be antisemitism.  Clearly some do, they need to be dissuaded of this view.  However, in my 10years of advocacy on behalf of Palestinians I have never found that to be the case.  Those who indulge in overt antisemitic behaviour hurt the cause of Palestinians as well as causing fear to Jews. Unfortunately, every society has a small number of people on its fringe who use any cause as an expression of their own unattended issues.

The right wing of Australian politics together with their media, too easily adopt Israel’s language. This places Australian Palestinians in the intimidating position of being subject to demeaning and hateful speech, especially since the Bondi massacre.

Last week I was present at a local social gathering in which conversation turned to Bondi where a view was proffered, without response, that Palestinians had taken Israeli land, inferring Palestinians were the problem behind antisemitism.

The cruelty of Bondi was not motivated by an Arab, let alone a Palestinian cause.  It was motivated by the ISIS agenda, a much broader agenda which has caused more death and destruction amongst Muslims than any other people. It was motivated by a cause external to Australia.

There is no question that racism is alive and well in Australia.  Directed towards Jews it deserves strong condemnation. Hate speech directed against Australia’s First Nations people has long been ignored, even tolerated.

As the Royal Commission has been announced, we can only hope the terms under which it has been called look at hate speech in its broadest context, and that what is named antisemitism, but is not, is named for what it is, an attempt to silence critique of international criminality.
​
We can only hope too that those who have sought to use the Bondi massacre for partisan political reasons will desist, and that national cohesion is advanced.