Zionist Pressure, Artistic Censorship
The sacking and of Antoinette Lattouf and reinstatement of Khaled Sabsabi expose a deeper crisis in Australian institutions: the silencing of truth in service of power.
As has long been the case in the upper echelons of business and government, an unsavoury element operates not in the public interest or for what is just, but in pursuit of self-interest or allegiance to external powers. That’s the very definition of corruption.
Israel’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians—driven by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s obsessive push for regional dominance—and the international community’s moral failure to act decisively, underscores that reality.
ABC journalist Antoinette Lattouf, an Australian of Lebanese descent, is a case study in how this influence operates. In December 2023, she was sacked from a casual five-day presenting role on ABC Radio Sydney after sharing a Human Rights Watch post on Instagram highlighting Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza following the October 7 Hamas attack.
Behind her dismissal were powerful pro-Israel lobby groups who, according to court evidence, pressured ABC executives. Management complied—promptly terminating Lattouf without a formal hearing, due process, or union consultation.
Following a lengthy legal battle, Australia’s Federal Court ruled in June 2025 that the ABC had unlawfully sacked Lattouf in violation of the Fair Work Act and its own enterprise agreement. The court awarded her $70,000 in compensation for non-economic loss, with a further hearing set to determine potential penalties against the broadcaster. The ruling marked a significant blow to those who seek to silence journalists exposing human rights abuses in Gaza.
Lattouf’s case highlighted a disturbing reality: she was targeted not just because of her Lebanese heritage, but because she dared to speak publicly against Israeli aggression. She became a victim of political censorship veiled in bureaucratic justification.
Now, another Lebanese Australian has walked the same tightrope.
Earlier this year, Creative Australia announced that artist Khaled Sabsabi and curator Michael Dagostino would represent Australia at the 2026 Venice Biennale. Born in Tripoli, Lebanon, in 1965, Sabsabi migrated to Australia in 1978 during the Lebanese civil war. He settled in Western Sydney and developed a multidisciplinary art practice exploring spirituality, identity, displacement, and social justice.
Dagostino, a seasoned curator with more than 25 years of experience, is Director of Museums and Cultural Engagement at the University of Sydney, overseeing the Chau Chak Wing Museum and the Seymour Centre. The pair were celebrated for their visionary artistic partnership—until they were abruptly removed from the Biennale project just days after the announcement.
At the centre of the controversy was a 2007 video installation by Sabsabi titled You, which features a speech by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Although the work is widely understood to be critical and reflective, its existence was seized upon by Liberal Senator Claire Chandler in Parliament. The result: media outcry, political interference, and institutional panic.
Creative Australia caved to the pressure, rescinding the appointment with little transparency and no engagement with the affected artists. The move triggered an immediate backlash. More than 4,000 artists and cultural leaders signed a petition calling for reinstatement. Prominent board members including Lindy Lee and head of visual arts Mikala Tai resigned in protest.
In response to the scandal, Creative Australia commissioned a review by consultancy Blackhall & Pearl, which found that the sacking was riddled with “missteps, assumptions and missed opportunities,” and lacked proper risk assessment protocols.
On July 2, 2025, justice prevailed. Creative Australia formally reinstated Sabsabi and Dagostino. Acting Chair Wesley Enoch issued a public apology for the “hurt and pain” caused by the earlier decision. The artists accepted the offer, expressing their hope that the agency had learned from its failings.
Federal Arts Minister Tony Burke welcomed the decision, stating clearly that Sabsabi’s work does not promote terrorism and is instead a legitimate cultural exploration of complex global themes. On the other side, Liberal MP Julian Leeser condemned the reinstatement, calling it an affront to “Australian values.”
The episode raises disturbing questions about how lobby groups and media pressure are increasingly influencing cultural and political decision-making in Australia. What began as an artistic appointment became a national flashpoint revealing the deep fault lines in Australia’s cultural independence.
Both the Lattouf and Sabsabi cases show how public institutions—from national broadcasters to cultural agencies—are vulnerable to external lobbying, ideological intimidation, and political interference. These institutions, entrusted with impartiality and public interest, instead compromised their mandates to appease power.
More broadly, the controversy has spotlighted how artists and journalists from Arab and Muslim backgrounds face unique scrutiny, particularly when their work confronts Israeli policy. Sabsabi’s reinstatement is a win—but it came at the cost of trust in an institution that folded under pressure.
The Venice Biennale, is an event synonymous with international cultural dialogue, it has now become a battleground for much more - a test of Australia’s willingness to stand by artistic freedom and resist political intimidation.
If Australia is to live up to its democratic ideals, it must ensure its public institutions serve Australians, not the powerful.
Thank you Roger and yes it is the tip of the Ice berg.
This piece ought to be read widely.
Far too many have little understanding, if any, of how powerful censorship, in any form, can be or how it, inevitably, reflects and promotes the self-interested views of a particular cohort or individual.
*No group* ought to be prevented from making its case through publication, media, discussions or other appropriate means. Where a view or issue is particularly controversial or provocative, then rather than banning or censoring it, alternative arguments and views ought to be released and the whole put into context.
Freedom of expression either exists or it doesn't. As soon as some particular view is allowed to suppress another, then freedom of expression is ended.
Unfortunately, many people seem to believe that swearing, irreligious, aggressive, foul, unpalatable and other views should not be allowed and that those making them should be penalised in some way. This is a simplistic view that makes no sense if examined. Shutting people up, censoring their writing, banning their films or whatever, changes little, if anything. Indeed, in many instances it will actually highlight and draw attention to precisely what it is being sought to hide. An old adage suggests: "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't." Whilst I have no belief in 'devils' per se, the meaning is clear and I agree with it, Sun Tsu gave similar advice when he reputedly advised: "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer."
The cases mentioned in your article are examples of the 'relatively' insidious way in which censorship and suppression of views takes place. They may seem far from 'insidious' to those who take the time and make the effort to be well informed or those who have a particular interest in the areas where these misdeeds took place. The reality is, though, that the vast majority of the public would probably take little or no notice of them, even should they come across their mention.
Just as children must be protected from themselves, i.e. their own undeveloped understandings and appreciation of various dangers, so must the general populace. Those who are aware of the wider potential and actual consequences of such events may quite readily make the mistake of assuming that such awareness will be widespread. I think not.
Our governmental system, laws, institutions, religions, schooling and social 'norms' all take a part in forming our attitudes, what we accept, what we respect, what we consider to be our own rights and what we consider to be the rights of others. Indeed, my observation is that most are unaware of just how much of that which they consider to be their own view, opinion or belief is actually a mix of implanted ideas that they have *learned* - but more by *rote* than in the sense of achievement of understanding. Not least, this is because our society, particularly during schooling, (which is more about socialisation than education), teaches us to seek *answers* and not only answers but *the answer* and to accept it when we find or are given whatever is presented as having that status. In fact, of course, there is rarely a single answer and, in any case, true learning is derived from *asking questions* and it is rare to find that being taught, other than perhaps in philosophy classes - probably totally absent in our schools and largely removed from our higher education institutions.
We are taught, as well, to *not rock the boat*, for that is presented as rude, disrespectful, disruptive, trouble-causing or worse.
So, the stage is already set. The events referred to in your article are, I suggest, the proverbial *tip of the iceberg* and that such incidents of a lesser or greater degree are taking place every day almost everywhere. I have suffered them myself on more than one occasion.
I ought to shut up, so I will.
Take care. Stay safe.
r.