Abdel-Fattah Targeted by The Australian, Highlighting Its Hypocrisy

There isn’t a day that passes where the Australian Newspaper isn’t banner waving with its support for Israel. It’s a shameless exhibition of overt obnoxious pandering.

The Australian has taken the art of cheerleading to another level. The subtlety of support newspapers used to once show with a pretend sense of balance has disappeared. That doesn’t exist for Murdoch’s rabidly pro-Zionist paper.

Today, ‘The Israelian’ turned its sights on Macquarie University academic and attacked Dr. Randa Abdel-Fattah for tweet she issued on X.

There’s no denying The Australian is a true defender of the faith, and as it wrongly assumes in its warped sense of justice and fairness to defend a State of genociding psychopaths, it sought to use the might of it power to grossly mischaracterise Dr Abdel-Fattah’s statements, her research, and her right to criticise the ongoing atrocities committed by Israel.

The concerted effort to vilify an accomplished scholar like Dr Abdel-Fattah for exercising her academic freedom and voicing a principled stance on one of the most pressing human rights crises of our time smacks of hypocrisy and bias.

It also exposes a double standard when it comes to freedom of speech and the use of public funds for research.

Dr. Abdel-Fattah’s remarks, wishing for the end of Zionism and Israel as we know it, must be understood in the context of her Arabic heritage and the lived experience of countless Palestinians and Arabs who have suffered under Israeli policies of occupation, displacement, and systemic oppression.

For decades, Israel has been accused by human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, of committing crimes against humanity, including apartheid and ethnic cleansing.

The call for the end of Zionism is not a call for hatred against Jews, as some along with The Israelian disingenuously claim, but a call to dismantle a political ideology that has justified the theft of Palestinian land, the destruction of homes, the imprisonment of children, and the ongoing genocide of Palestinians and Lebanese civilians. Criticising Zionism is a legitimate and necessary stance in the pursuit of justice and equality.

As an academic, Abdel-Fattah has the right—indeed, the responsibility—to challenge oppressive systems and amplify marginalised voices. Her statements reflect the anger and despair of those who’ve witnessed entire generations of Palestinians and Lebanese endure unrelenting violence and systemic erasure.

The hypocrisy of The Australian in attacking her for her views is glaring, given the platform it provides to commentators who unreservedly defend Israel’s actions, often in ways that dehumanise Palestinians and dismiss their suffering.

If Dr. Abdel-Fattah’s words are provocative, they’re no more so than the actions they respond to: the relentless bombing of Gaza, the killing of children, the siege on a population of over two million people, and now, the aggression toward Lebanon. Her critics conveniently ignore these realities, focusing instead on discrediting her as an academic and activist.

A key point raised by Dr. Abdel-Fattah’s detractors is a $870,269 research grant she received from the Australian Research Council (ARC). Sarah Henderson, the Federal Liberal Party’s Opposition spokeswoman for Education’s suggestion the funding should be clawed back because of Dr. Abdel-Fattah’s views is not only anti-intellectual but also a dangerous precedent.

Academic grants are awarded based on the merit of research proposals, not the personal political beliefs of the recipients. To retroactively penalise researchers for their views undermines the very principles of academic freedom and critical inquiry.

Taxpayer-funded research often explores contentious issues, from climate change to systemic racism, and it is this willingness to engage with difficult topics that drives societal progress. By targeting Dr. Abdel-Fattah, it reveal the discomfort with research that challenges the status quo and questions entrenched power structures.

What stands out is The Australian’s hypocrisy. The paper has long served as a platform for pro-Israel commentators who have openly defended actions widely condemned by the international community as violations of international law.

It’s published pieces justifying the occupation of Palestinian territories, dismissing the suffering of Palestinians, and demonising critics of Israel as anti-Semitic. The double standard is stark: while defenders of Israel are given free rein to express their views, critics are labelled as hateful and unfit for public funding.

Dr. Abdel-Fattah’s critics would do well to recall the role of academic and public discourse in holding power to account. Far from spreading “hate speech,” her statements force us to confront uncomfortable truths about Israel’s policies and their impact on millions of lives. If her words provoke outrage, it should be directed not at her but at the injustices she highlights.

The backlash against Dr. Abdel-Fattah is part of a broader attempt to silence critics of Israel and delegitimise Palestinian narratives. Yet, as the death toll in Gaza and Lebanon continues to rise, it’s important voices like Dr. Abdel-Fattah’s are amplified, not silenced.

Her statement wishing for the end of Israel isn’t a call for violence but a vision of a future where all people—Jews, Palestinians, and others—can live as equals, free from oppression. To equate this with anti-Semitism is a deliberate misreading of her message and a disservice to genuine efforts to combat hatred. It’s also intellectually corrupt.

Dr. Abdel-Fattah is an academic who has dedicated her career to challenging injustice and amplifying marginalized voices. The attacks against Abdel-Fattah aren’t only an abuse to academic freedom but a distraction from the real issue: the ongoing suffering of Palestinians and the urgent need for accountability.

Rather than demonise her, we should be asking why voices like hers are so rare in Australian public discourse. Why is it acceptable for commentators to defend Israel’s actions, no matter how egregious, but unacceptable for an academic to wish for an end to those very policies?