SearchRecent comments
Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
narrowing the space for cultural debate and free expression.......
Writers and artists are being cancelled for their political views, even when those views are not expressed in their work, narrowing the space for cultural debate and free expression. Is this the next step in cancel culture? The University of Queensland Press has scrapped 5,000 copies of a forthcoming children’s book, Bila: A River Cycle by Wiradjuri poet Jazz Money, illustrated by Matt Chun. UQP has cancelled a children’s book, citing antisemitism
The university’s dean of humanities, Heather Zwicker, cited an article by Chun, titled ‘We don’t mourn fascists’, published after the Bondi massacre last December. In an email sent to UQP staff on Wednesday, Zwicker said Chun’s statements “do not align with UQ’s policies and values, including in light of its adopted definition of antisemitism”. There is no suggestion that either the text or illustrations of Bila suggest antisemitism. The claim is that Chun’s statements make him an unacceptable author to be published by UQP. When Lamestream Media approached the University of Queensland for comment, it repeated this explanation, saying it “regrets the impact this matter has on the author” and professing “enormous respect for Jazz and her work”. The decision follows a campaign from the Australian newspaper after book retailer Dymocks responded to Chun’s article by removing his books from its shops in January. The article attacked the Bondi Chanukah celebration as a display of Zionist violence. Chun wrote that: “Whiteness, Jewishness and the backdrop of Bondi Beach were enough to bestow every person killed with default innocence and virtue.” Most of us would probably accept that Chun’s language was antisemitic and may well fall under the restrictions that exist under the federal Racial Discrimination Act. But none of his words appear in Bila. It is telling that the Australian’s article does not even mention the author of the book, presumably because it could find no quotes to use against her. A number of authors have responded angrily. Multiple prize-winning poet Evelyn Araluen, one of a number of prominent Indigenous writers who have been published by UQP, has cut ties with the publisher. In an email to UQP, shared on Instagram, she described it as “cultural violence”: You have made a decision today to destroy culture, to destroy story, and to destroy any pretense of integrity UQP might have once held in the community. First Nations author and publisher Anita Heiss has posted on Facebook: “I stand with Jazz Money and Evelyn Araluen […] Every author and academic should be appalled and concerned about this attack on free speech.” Another prominent author, Randa Abdel-Fattah, who was at the centre of the Adelaide Writers Week fiasco, has stated she will not publish with UQP again. She criticised “machinations against a children’s book written by a First Nations writer” being “indulged by a publisher that has burnished its reputation through publishing First Nations writers”. Abdel-Fattah was one of more than 30 UQP authors who wrote to the publisher asking it to fulfil its contractual obligation, after Bila’s publication was suspended in January. Others included First Nations writers Ellen van Neerven, Allison Whittaker, Amy McQuire and Tony Birch, as well as Sara M. Saleh and Omar Sakr. Boycotts and cancellations We live in an era that increasingly seeks to cancel authors for their political views, even when these views are not reflected in their creative works. There are bookshops that refuse to stock Harry Potter books because of JK Rowling’s increasingly strident transphobic language. There are cinemas that hesitate to show Woody Allen movies because of allegations against him of sexual abuse. I would not invite Chun, Rowling or Allen to dinner. But I am unwilling to argue we should cancel their work, especially when their views are not part of the work being cancelled. Since the Hamas attacks of October 2023 and the resulting Israeli destruction of Gaza, our culture has been torn apart by cancellations and boycotts. Even peaceful expressions of support for Palestinians led to major friction in the Sydney Theatre Company, while pianist Jayson Gilham was cancelled by the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra after dedicating a piece to journalists killed in Gaza. Attempts to impose a particular definition of antisemitism led to the virtual collapse of the Bendigo Writers Festival. The intervention of South Australia Premier Peter Malinauskas to prevent Abdel-Fattah’s appearance at Adelaide Writers Week in March led to a boycott large enough to kill the entire festival. Meanwhile, Jewish creatives who support Israel have also claimed considerable discrimination and cancellations. Probably the best-known example is singer Deborah Conway, who has experienced multiple cancellations and attacks for her views. As Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank becomes increasingly violent, there is increasing pressure on governments to restrict criticism. Recently a man was arrested in Queensland for wearing a t-shirt bearing the words “From the river to the sea”, which, it is claimed, is antisemitic in its desire to obliterate the existing state of Israel. Ironically, senior members of the Israeli government make exactly the same claim in reverse when they speak of the lands of Judea and Samaria, which deny any Palestinian claims. Had the protester in Queensland worn a t-shirt with those unproscribed words, the police would presumably not have acted. We need find a better way to express political support and empathy than cancellations and boycotts. I was not invited to Adelaide Writers Week, but had I been, my instinct would have been to go and use the opportunity to speak out against Malinauskas’ attempt to censor an author because of her political views. As a Jew, I am very aware of the reality of antisemitism. But as a writer, I do not believe we counter racism, antisemitism, homophobia or transphobia by boycotts and cancellations.
PLEASE VISIT: YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005. Gus Leonisky POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951. RABID ATHEIST. WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….
SEE ALSO: https://michaelwest.com.au/antisemitism-royal-commission-dilemma-not-all-jews-think-the-same/
|
User login |
obsession.....
Ramzy Baroud
Israel’s war obsessionIsrael’s escalating wars reflect a long-standing strategy of military dominance, but recent conflicts are exposing its limits and internal contradictions.
It is tempting to argue that Israel’s new military doctrine is predicated on perpetual war – but the reality is more complex.
Not that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would object to such an arrangement. On the contrary, his relentless drive for military escalation suggests precisely that. After all, his openly declared quest for a “greater Israel” would require exactly this kind of permanent militarism – endless expansion and sustained regional destruction.
However, Israel cannot sustain an open-ended fight on multiple fronts indefinitely.
Israeli officials boast about fighting on “seven fronts,” but many of these are, in military terms, largely imaginary rather than sustained battlefields.
The real wars, however, are entirely of Israel’s making: from the genocide in Gaza to its unprovoked regional wars.
Still, that fact should not blind us to another reality: in the lead-up to the war on Iran, and in the escalation against Lebanon, there was near-total consensus among Jewish Israelis. An Israel Democracy Institute survey conducted on March 2–3 found that 93 per cent of Jewish Israelis supported the joint US-Israeli attack on Iran. Support cut across all political camps.
The same enthusiasm for war accompanied the Gaza genocide and the various wars and escalations in Lebanon.
Even Yair Lapid – so often and so falsely marketed abroad as a “dove” – fully backed these wars, admitting after the Iran ceasefire that Israel had entered them with “rare consensus” and that he supported them “from the very first moment.”
His repeated criticisms, like those of other Israeli politicians, are not of the war but of Netanyahu’s failure to deliver a strategic outcome.
And this is the crucial distinction. Israelis mostly support the wars, but many no longer trust Netanyahu to translate destruction into strategic victory. By mid-April, 92 per cent of Jewish Israelis gave the army high marks for its management of the Iran war, but only 38 per cent gave high ratings to the government.
In other words, the public still believes in war but increasingly doubts the leadership waging it.
That distinction may not matter much to us, since the outcome remains mass death, devastation, and colonial violence. But in Israel’s own military and strategic calculations, it matters enormously. Its wars have historically followed a familiar model: crush resistance, impose military and political domination, and translate battlefield violence into colonial expansion.
Netanyahu delivered none of that.
This is why the uproar in Israel over the April 16 Lebanon ceasefire has been so fierce, and why the fears surrounding a possible stalemate with Iran run even deeper.
The Lebanon ceasefire clearly did not secure one of Israel’s central declared aims: the disarmament of Hezbollah. Israel kept troops in southern Lebanon, but the agreement halted offensive operations and fell far short of the promised “total victory.”
For many in Israel, any outcome that falls short of total victory is immediately read as defeat. One northern Israeli regional leader, Eyal Shtern, captured that mood with brutal clarity when he reacted to the Lebanon ceasefire by asking how Israel had gone “from absolute victory to total surrender,” in remarks reported by CNN.
That is the real crisis now confronting Israel: not that it has discovered the limits of permanent war, but that it has once again discovered that exterminatory violence does not automatically produce political victory.
While Iran possesses political leverage that could allow for a long-term, or even permanent, truce, Lebanon and Syria remain in a far more vulnerable position. However, no one is in a more precarious condition than the Palestinians, particularly those in Gaza.
Unlike others who retain some political margin and space to manoeuvre, Palestinians live under Israeli occupation, apartheid, and siege. Gaza, in particular, has been reduced to a sealed enclave of devastation.
Its hermetic siege has produced one of the most horrific humanitarian catastrophes in modern history: an entire population surviving on polluted water, with infrastructure destroyed, food critically scarce, and thousands still buried beneath the rubble.
Aside from their legendary steadfastness – sumud – Palestinians operate under severe constraints in their ability to impose conditions on Israel, particularly as it continues to receive unconditional support from the United States and its western allies. Yet their resilience, collective action, and enduring presence remain powerful forms of leverage that cannot be easily contained.
Netanyahu – and those who will come after him – will always find in Palestine a space in which war can be waged continuously and at relatively low cost to Israel itself. Unlike other battlefields, where war becomes politically, militarily, and economically unsustainable, Israel has turned its occupation of Palestine into a permanent battlefield.
Even if Netanyahu, now politically diminished and aging, exits the political scene, the underlying paradigm will remain intact. Future Israeli leaders will continue to wage war on Palestine, not despite its costs, but because of its perceived benefits: it is financially subsidised, colonially advantageous, and politically sustainable within Israel’s current structure.
To break this paradigm, Palestinians must generate leverage – real leverage. This cannot come from futile negotiations or appeals to long-ignored international law. It can only emerge from sustained collective resistance to colonialism, reinforced by meaningful support from Arab and Muslim states and genuine international allies, and amplified by global solidarity capable of exerting real pressure on Israel and, crucially, on its principal benefactors.
For now, Netanyahu continues his wars because he has no answer to his own strategic failures. Here, escalation is not a strength; it is the last refuge of a leadership that cannot deliver victory.
This, however, also reveals something else: Israel is entering a moment of unprecedented vulnerability.
That vulnerability must be exposed – clearly, consistently, and urgently – by all those who seek an end to these senseless wars, an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and a path toward justice that has been denied for far too long.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/04/23/israels-war-obsession/
READ FROM TOP.
PLEASE VISIT:
YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.
Gus Leonisky
POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.
RABID ATHEIST.
WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….