On Friday morning The Age published two opinion pieces by Jewish Australians on the topic of Israel’s war in Gaza. Framed as an attempted “debate”, the two stories instead came across as a reminder of how willing The Age (and most Australian outlets) is to publish pro-Israel voices (Jewish and non-Jewish), and how unwilling they are to publish Palestinian or pro-Palestinian voices.
That long term systemic bias is obviously a significant issue on its own, but for the moment I want to discuss the specifics of these two pieces because, in my view, they include some of the most morally reprehensible arguments the paper has published – not just on this topic, but ever.
What’s even worse is those arguments are being published in the current context, in which even historically pro-Israel sections of politics and the media are finally starting to recognise how horrific Israel’s slaughter in Gaza is.
That is the starting point for the first piece, by writer Nicola Redhouse. She signed a statement calling for an end to Israel’s war, and defending the perspectives of Jews who were speaking out against it. She wrote that the Australian Jewish News refused to run the statement, in the form of a paid advertisement, which to be honest should probably be a story The Age should cover as an actual news story, rather than consigning it to one line in an opinion piece.
I have some problems with the way Redhouse frames the war but I respect her willingness to express a view that, as she writes, risks making her a pariah in her own community.
The second piece, by Caulfield Rabbi Daniel Rabin, is a sort of rebuttal to Redhouse’s piece. It’s unclear why Redhouse’s very mild piece warrants a response and it’s certainly unusual for one to be published alongside it.
Rabin’s piece doesn’t really grapple with much of what Redhouse argued. Instead it is a full-throated defence of Israel’s invasion and an attempt to justify the killing of civilians. Even though The Age has published countless articles defending Israel’s actions, I think some of the things Rabin says go beyond what the paper has published before.
