23 hours Ago By Rodger Shanahan
Last week the Australian government denied a visitor’s visa to Ayelet Shaked , a right-wing former Israeli cabinet minister, while this week the Israeli government sanctioned Haaretz , the country’s oldest and left-leaning newspaper, with the communications minister accusing the paper of “anti-Israeli incitement”. These actions highlight just how sensitive commentary and reporting on issues relating to conflict in the Middle East can be, regardless of one’s closeness to or distance from the region. It also highlights why it is hard but necessary for governments to find balance when dealing with issues relating to the conflict, and why advocacy groups in Australia should play a more responsible role in choosing who they ask to contribute to the public debate in this country.
Former Israeli minister Ayelet Shaked was refused an Australian visa on character grounds. Credit: AP Before Shaked was denied entry to Australia, it is likely that few Australians knew that a provocatively titled meeting called the Canberra-Jerusalem Strategic Dialogue was being hosted by the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council. Given the title linked Australia’s capital with Jerusalem – a city that Israel claims, but Australia does not recognise , as its capital – it is unlikely that it would have featured a balanced examination of the complex issues facing the Middle East.
Despite its prior obscurity, the meeting hit the international press, thanks to the government’s denial of Shaked’s visa on character grounds, based on concerns that her visit could vilify Australians and incite racial discord. Shaked is a former cabinet minister who previously threatened to leave the Israeli government if it decided to freeze settlement construction in the West Bank, and who said that 2 million Gazans should permanently leave the territory, and that other countries should accommodate them. There is no shortage of well-credentialed, nuanced and thoughtful Israeli speakers that such a dialogue could have invited.
The organisers would have known Shaked’s history before they issued an invitation. So why do it during this highly charged period? Shaked was granted a visa to come to Australia in early 2023, but to steal the words of American author S.E.
Hinton: that was then, this is now. Her previous entry to this country pre-dated the October 7 terrorist attack on Israel, when the atmosphere surrounding the Palestinian issue was much less febrile than it is today. Ministers need to take into account whether allowing a person to enter the country to publicly air their controversial views serves the national interest.
Plenty of high-profile people have failed this test and been denied a visa in the past, and plenty more will be denied in the future. A foundational characteristic of liberal democracies is the promotion and protection of free speech. But the Australian government is also entrusted with promoting social cohesion in an increasingly multicultural society, which means that it needs to ensure that those invited here to speak on sensitive issues do so in a way that contributes to healthy public debate.
If the organisers believed Shaked’s insights to be valuable, they were always free to have her join the dialogue virtually – the government isn’t denying her right to free speech; it’s denying her entry to the country. Admittedly, when discussing the Middle East, what constitutes healthy public debate can be difficult to measure, such are the emotions surrounding the various issues. But the government must measure it, and apply its standards as even-handedly as possible.
The government, for example, cancelled the visa of the visiting American legal academic Khaled Beydoun last month after he used provocative language about the October 7 anniversary, describing it as a “good day” when addressing Muslim groups in Sydney. Prior to these events, relatively few Australians knew of either Shaked or Beydoun, and most people outside Jewish and Muslim lobby groups don’t particularly care whether their visas were denied or cancelled. Most Australians don’t care much for people invited here to perpetuate extremist views.
One can and should be revolted by Hamas’ brutality on October 7. But people can and should be distressed about the enormous destruction being wrought by Israel as revenge without any clear plan for what is to come after it finishes killing. So, rather than sponsor deliberately provocative speakers like Beydoun and Shaked, who add little to any reasoned debate about the future of the Middle East, organisers of speaking tours and dialogues about such a sensitive and complex issue should strive to engage people who speak knowledgeably to a broad audience about the complexities involved, rather than ideologues who simply preach to their own in their respective communities.
The government has every right to push back against organisers who bring people with objectionable views to this country, while those same organisers have a responsibility to add to the quality of the debate, rather than courting controversy in an attempt to advance their causes or highlight their “brand”. Dr Rodger Shanahan has appeared as an expert witness in Australian terrorism cases and is the author of Islamic State in Australia . As an army officer, his operational experience included Lebanon, Syria and Afghanistan.
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here ..
