As the shock of Hamas’ attack on Israel continues to reverberate around the world, the extent of anti-Israel sentiment on display has provoked a great deal of agonised confusion over the question of freedom of expression. Many from my end of the political spectrum, who have rightly bemoaned the curtailment of freedom of speech inherent in the legislation being enacted against so-called ‘hate speech’ and ‘disinformation’ are now to be found advocating the wholesale prosecution of pro-Palestine protesters.
In today’s Australian, Peta Credlin takes aim at decades of misguided multiculturalism, and at the protesters who recently thronged the steps of the Sydney Opera House, chanting Pro Palestinian slogans. She concludes with a call for all those who participate in such marches to be prosecuted and, if not found to be Australian citizens, deported. On the other hand, Brendan O’Neill, writing in the spectator, argues that such protests, while detestable, should enjoy the protection of free speech.
I think there are flaws in both arguments. I agree with O’Neill that those who merely criticise Israel should have their right to freedom of expression protected. However, I think he overlooks the fact that many who participate in these marches go further, explicitly and unambiguously inciting the killing of Jews. That has never been a protected form of expression, and nor should it be. It’s in fact an offence, and should be prosecuted. HAMAS, furthermore, is a proscribed terrorist organisation on Australia, and so far as I can determine, urging support for it is a criminal offence.
As to Credlin’s position, greatly though I sympathise with it, I have to take the view that those who confine their rhetoric to criticism of the Israeli state, and even of Zionism, should remain free to do so. The moment, the very instant, however, that they step beyond mere criticism and incite violence against Jews in general, or urge support for proscribed organisations, they should be detained and prosecuted.
While the events of October 7th have shifted my sympathies significantly in the direction of Israel, it must be observed that Israel’s champions have in the past done themselves no favours in this regard, by insisting that any and all criticism of Israel constitutes anti-semitic speech. That has been a mistake, and the confusion over the rights of Israel’s detractors to express their views is just one of its unfortunate consequences.
Tom Forrester-Paton
Harrumpf.com 
I couldn’t have put it better myself!
LikeLike
Hi Tom
Very good points â thereâs little Iâd disagree with here. Thereâve been pro-Palestinian marches here every Saturday in London and other cities. I understand that among the protesters thereâve been a small minority whoâve chanted slogans or displayed placards supporting HAMASâs position, eg âFrom the river to the sea, Palestine will be free â. I think itâs perfectly legitimate to argue for a one-state solution in the Middle East (though I donât personally see that it would work, given the Israelisâ wish to remain in a specifically Jewish state). But the chanters must surely know that what HAMAS have in mind is not one Middle Eastern state where Muslims, Jews and Christians all live together like one big happy family!?
You could scarcely imagine more difficult circumstances in which Israel has to defend itself, being attacked by a murderous paramilitary group which is totally embedded in a densely populated area. Iâd add the following thoughts:
Iâve heard people saying that the civilian population of Gaza is being âtargetedâ and âpunishedâ. Clearly thatâs not the case: if it were, Israel wouldnât have warned civilians to move south â itâs clear that the IDF are simply trying to eliminate HAMAS. One can argue about whether civilians were given enough time, but probably the more time given, the greater the benefit to HAMAS.
Some people have argued that the cost to the civilian population of IDFâs bombardment is out of proportion to the atrocities committed by HAMAS, primarily in terms of numbers of people killed and injured. But the comparison has to be with what HAMAS would do in the future â by their own admission – if theyâre not stopped: theyâd take any opportunity to repeat the atrocities they committed on 7 Oct.
Iâm as appalled as anyone by the mounting toll of dead and injured in Gaza, and the suffering caused by the Israeli bombardment. Iâm not sufficiently knowledgeable to say whether, possibly through different tactics, any of this could have been avoided. The only thing Iâd say is that I couldnât for the life of me see the justification for restricting the Gazansâ supply of water and food.
Apart from calling for a ceasefire, I donât know what those who condemn the Israelisâ actions advocate that they should have done instead, because they donât say. They donât seem to realise, or admit, how difficult or impossible it would be to get HAMAS to agree to a ceasefire. The trouble is, if the Israelis stop fighting while HAMAS is still a going concern, all the destruction, death and injury in Gaza will have been for nothing. (Temporary pauses in the fighting to allow aid to reach civilians is another matter.)
As far as I can see, the Israelisâ choice was either to invade Gaza and attempt to eliminate HAMAS, or to do nothing other than strengthen their borders with Gaza.
Maybe the latter option would have been the right thing to do, but, as far as Iâm aware, few countries in the world have ever reacted to such an invasion, and such atrocities, with such restraint. And in recent history, some have engaged in wars which caused at least as many casualties with much less threat to their own civilians and territory, eg USA & Vietnam. Which gives some credence to the complaint that many Israelis and Jews make that Israel is held, unfairly, to a higher standard in these matters than other countries.
Finally, I want to say that I agree with the last two paragraphs in your blog. Itâs legitimate, and shouldnât be labelled antisemitic, to criticize Israelâs policies, and even to advocate for peaceful moves towards a one-state solution in the Middle East (which, if genuinely democratic, would not be a specifically Jewish state).
Love, K
LikeLike