This is a fair description of people on both sides of the debate in recent months:those who believe they can justify Hamas’ attack,or breeze over the keeping of hostages,or explain away Israel’s ongoing massacre of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians. The rationalisations pile up,until you are left with the absurd arguments of this past week,in which some reflexively blame Hamas for Israel’s killing of aid workers – as though Hamas’ horrific attacks mean anything is now permitted. This is a strange,atemporal view,in which there is no past or future,but only October 7,which apparently had no past leading up to it and justifies everything that comes after it.
After months of carnage,we seem incapable of a discussion that acknowledges both the October attacks and the distressing way that Israel is conducting itself in Gaza. Reports that sections of the Israeli Defence Forces are operating more or less as laws unto themselves have troubling historical echoes (including with wars this country has fought). A report thatIsrael is relying on Artificial Intelligence to target bombings,and permitting significant civilian casualties in its targeted strikes,is frightening,both about the present and the future.
But I am talking about debates which most Australians have tuned out of. This is partly because of the public’s usual depressing impatience. But it is also because of the particular way this discussion has been conducted. In the public sphere this has been most obvious in relation to those who criticise Israel,though in some circles Israel’s supporters have faced similar:work lost,friendships destroyed,business relationships severed.
As this schism has widened,driven in part by antisemitism and Islamophobia,reasoned debate has mostly vanished. Discussion has largely been given over to those on each side who are willing to operate at a feverish pitch,playing malicious games of gotcha with code words grasped only by those who play such games for a living. The result has been,as in the Voice debate,a mass silencing of everyone outside of those extremes. This is one of the most disturbing developments in this country I can remember.
The other large story of last week,the Lehrmann defamation proceedings,seems at first quite separate. Often,such cases involve niche legal disputes. Increasingly,though,they have become sites for other battles:over feminism,sexual violence,journalism,nationalism,masculinity. The fact that defamation suits have become so central to discussions of our national culture is strange – but inevitable.
Loading
As convention dies,as rational discussion becomes impossible,it is natural that debate has gravitated towards a forum in which rules exist,facts are established,and at least one person listens calmly.
Agreement on difficult topics may not be possible. Even then,the process of working towards agreement,of honest and open discussion,can be important. We seem to have lost this ability,or perhaps the desire. And yet,this bleak fact too is something we will largely leave unspoken.
If the fighting in Gaza ever stops,we will likely take the sudden pause in shouting as a sign of our cohesion,believing that our society has come through a difficult time and arrived on the other side. It won’t be true.
Sean Kelly is author ofThe Game:A Portrait of Scott Morrison,a regular columnist and a former adviser to Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd.
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge,champion and inform your own. Sign up here.