The Israel-Iran war has generated bizarre commentary from the Australian government. The Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, indicated that the two countries should negotiate. It is a sentiment repeated by the Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Richard Marles. Their recommendation, to return to the negotiation table, has been ridiculed in the media and described as ‘naïve’. Wikipedia informs its readers that ‘naivety’ ‘refers to an apparent or actual lack of experience and sophistication, often describing a neglect of pragmatism in favour of moral idealism’. The government, in espousing ‘moral idealism’ expects the warring parties to cease their hostilities to allow for negotiations to take place. But obviously, in the present circumstances, negotiation would not succeed and may even enable Iran to further its nuclear ambitions.
The Australian government’s Israel policy involves a reluctance to directly criticise Muslims or Iran in order not to exacerbate ethnic tensions in Australia. As a matter of fact, laws have been recently passed to criminalise any form of ‘undesirable’ comment about Islam, in what objectively constitutes a form of blasphemy law by stealth.
Be that as it may, the government of Israel’s policy sits uneasily with the realisation that Hamas started the war when it slaughtered Jewish people, including women and children, on October 7, 2023, and that Iran used Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Yemeni Houthis as proxies to facilitate the destruction of Israel. So, how could you explain the timid, decidedly uncritical, language of the Australian government when dealing with this issue?
For a long time now, it could be argued that Australian government responses to the troubles of the Middle East have been influenced by a desire not to offend its Muslim constituency. This may explain, at least in part, Penny Wong’s forceful advocacy in favour of recognising a Palestinian state. It may also explain the toleration of the ever-increasing anti-Jewish protests and the timid governmental response to the atrocities committed by anti-Semites in Australia who torched a synagogue and graffitied Jewish schools and property. Cynics might argue that the voting power of the Muslims in Western Sydney may have something to do with the government’s reluctance to tackle anti-Semitism in Australia.
However, although it would be easy or opportune to condemn the indecisiveness of the government, its approach is not totally without merit. This is because the government may seek to implement a policy of ‘neutrality’. According to this policy, if both the Jewish and Muslim religions (and by extension the Jewish and Iranian States) were treated neutrally, nobody would be offended or traumatised. Specifically, it means that governmental responses to the present conflict could neither promote nor denigrate Jewish or Muslim sensitivities, to secure an accommodation of each other’s interests.
However, a policy of ‘neutrality’ is the functional equivalent of ‘moral abdication’. Why? The government, in promoting negotiation between Israel and Iran, assumes that both parties are the moral equal to each other. Considering that Hamas started the carnage and that Iran openly and repeatedly advocated the destruction of Israel, ‘neutrality’ is a highly contestable idea. Moreover, to negotiate, the parties must consent and agree to the negotiation, because it is impossible to negotiate with yourself. This is an elementary insight, well-known to practitioners of mediation and arbitration. Quite simply: without a willingness to negotiate, there cannot be a negotiation. It is this simple, yet irrefutable, insight that our politicians fail to grasp when they pursue a policy of ‘neutrality’. Such a policy of ‘neutrality’ is thus a convenient, yet morally repugnant, attempt to sanctimoniously equate the goals of the aggressor and the victim as morally equal.
However, Australia’s political class increasingly embraces this policy. The sordid situation of Australian universities and their response to anti-Semitic activity on their campuses provides ample evidence.
The problem is aggravated by the fact that some universities have centres to promote Islamic and Arab cultures and are, or at least were at some point, financially sponsored by governments in the Middle East. We doubt students will learn how these Islamic regimes apply ‘diversity’ and promote ‘tolerance’ toward Christians, Jews, women, homosexuals, etc.
By now, most readers would know about the proliferation of Palestinian tent cities on campuses, especially in the early days of the conflict, the vitriolic attacks on Israel and Jews in student newspapers, the toxic graffiti on walls and interference with lectures. But the anti-Jewish activists argue that the expression of these hateful sentiments is protected free speech. And yet, any attempt by the Jewish community to claim the moral high ground in the face of demonstrable discrimination and intimidation, is dismissed because of the universities’ embrace of the policy of ‘neutrality’.
Of course, there is a fine line between protected free speech and unprotected hate speech. Common sense suggests that the right to free speech is instrumental in the dissemination and discussion of ideas that reasonable people could disagree on; it is not to be used as a sword to incite racial hatred and to spread poisonous messages. Indeed, this kind of language is unprotected, even under the speech codes adopted by Australian universities. These speech codes, based on former Chief Justice Robert French’s Model Code on freedom of speech and academic freedom, prohibit any speech that, in the circumstances, ‘is likely to humiliate or intimidate any other person or persons and which is intended to have either or both of those effects’. In practice, we believe this prohibition amounts to the implementation of a policy of ‘neutrality’ which penalises opinions deemed offensive by its recipient, in this case the Palestinian protesters, including staff and students. University apparatchiks appear to be unable or unwilling to jettison the policy of ‘neutrality’: it explains the turmoil on our university campuses.
University speech codes can thus operate to minimise Jewish concerns and marginalise conservative viewpoints on campus. Australia’s Woke brigade, and the emergence of Australia’s most illiberal era since the second world war have cast a pall of conformity over people who no longer dare to express their opinions, fearful of being silenced, humiliated, or ridiculed. Australia’s self-appointed new morality brigade moves against anyone daring to act on their religious beliefs or speak their minds – a situation that spineless politicians enthusiastically promote or conveniently neglect to ensure ‘neutrality’.
Indeed, discrimination against Jewish students and staff is not likely to be reduced even if government ministers pursue ‘neutrality’ to its illogical conclusion and inadvertently, or consciously, condone the vilification of Jewish students for the purpose of pandering to extremist Palestinian troublemakers on campus. In doing so, they promote and nurture intolerance under the cloak of ‘neutrality’.
Another aggravating problem, of course, is the policy of mass immigration of Islamic immigrants, some of whom may be prone to religious fanaticism, anti-Semitism, and Islamic terrorism. Although these radical Muslims are a minority within the entire Australian Muslim population, Australia should engage in serious research into all would-be visitors and immigrants and abandon the pro-forma review that prevails these days. This, of course, requires money and time; it also entails that each person entering the country be checked to ensure no radical Islamists are allowed in at all, even for brief visits, to secure our common security.
To deal with Muslim immigration in a responsible manner, radical Muslims who embrace Islamist ideology should not be allowed to immigrate, especially if they seek to apply Sharia law which oppresses women and promotes hatred towards other religious groups. Arguably, if it eventually becomes less and less likely that the radical actions of this faction within the Muslim faith can hardly be prevented, the best way to reduce the risk of terrorism is by further tightening Australia’s immigration policy.
It is worth remembering the words of the late Sir Harry Gibbs, formerly Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia:
‘While it would be grossly offensive to modern standards for a state to discriminate against any of its own citizens on the grounds of race, a state is entitled to prevent the immigration of persons whose culture is such that they are unlikely readily to integrate into society, or at least to ensure that persons of that kind do not enter the country in such numbers that they will be likely to form a distinct and alien section of society, with the resulting problems that we have seen in the United Kingdom.’
Going back to the Australian government’s policy of ‘neutrality’, it is time to reject such a policy and to acknowledge the evils committed by Hamas and the Iranian terrorists. This is a moral imperative, which the practical, yet misguided, policy of ‘neutrality’ effectively undermines.
Gabriël A. Moens AM is an emeritus professor of law at the University of Queensland and served as pro vice-chancellor and dean at Murdoch University.
Augusto Zimmermann is a professor of law and served as associate dean at Murdoch University. He is also a former commissioner with the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia.
Zimmermann & Moens are the authors of The Unlucky Country (Locke Press, 2024).
