ABC sacking exposes the actions of the Israel lobby

Once it becomes easier to sack commentators than to accept challenging viewpoints, society has lost sight of a key part of democracy – holding power to account, even when the truth hurts.

How far will the ABC go to protect the interests of the Israel lobby? That’s the key question in a legal case that exposes all the elements of political influence, media independence, and corporate misconduct. The case centres on the journalist Antoinette Lattouf and her unfair dismissal from the ABC – the catalyst for this case was a social media repost concerning allegations made by Human Rights Watch that the Israeli government was using starvation as a method of warfare in Gaza and in her repost, Lattouf referenced the organisation’s work, adding the words “HRW reporting starvation as a tool of war”.

Human Rights Watch is a globally recognised organisation that employs researchers, legal experts, journalists, and investigators across 70 nationalities, and received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for its role in the banning of land mines. Despite its reputation as a credible source, the ABC chose to respond to pressure from the Israel lobby by terminating Lattouf’s employment – which was a short five-day contract anyway – rather than addressing the substance of what she had shared.

The manner in which Lattouf was dismissed has become the focus of her unlawful termination lawsuit against the ABC, raising key issues about editorial freedom, legal ethics, and the power applied by interest groups – in this case, the Israel lobby – over national broadcasters and other media enterprises. And, in this case, if the ABC had resisted external pressure and supported its journalist for reposting a fact-based statement from a credible human rights organisation, there wouldn’t have been any controversy. None. Instead, the abrupt dismissal drew even more attention to Lattouf’s work and questions about how the ABC handles its responsibility to maintain independent reporting.

In its haste to remove Lattouf, the ABC also contended that sacking her could not have been racially motivated because they refused to acknowledge that the Lebanese race exists. These details, which are surfacing as part of the ongoing legal case, reflect both confusion within the ABC’s internal processes and flawed legal justifications for the dismissal, as well as confirming the position of the ABC as a white-bread organisation that, instead of stamping out racism, simply applies more of it to appease certain interest groups.

In addition, the Lattouf v ABC case has highlighted the double standards in how the ABC applies its own policies over the use of social media. Several high-profile ABC personalities regularly repost seemingly controversial material without being asked to offer a “counterbalancing” piece or present competing perspectives. Lattouf’s single repost has triggered a disproportionate reaction.

This discrepancy shows an environment where editorial guidelines are inconsistently applied or easily influenced by powerful interests, such as the Israel lobby. This case could have far-reaching implications, not just for Lattouf’s professional future but also for how the ABC, as a public broadcaster, shows its commitment to journalistic independence and freedom. ABC management has allowed interference to come in from one lobbying group and, because of this, the impartiality and integrity that the public should expect from a publicly funded broadcaster has been severely compromised.

The erosion of democratic debate in Australia

The capacity of Israel lobby groups to extract swift and unquestioning compliance from media outlets and political figures shows weaknesses in how power is wielded in Australia. It is not uncommon for influential individuals tied to the Israel lobby to make direct calls to editors and senior executives at mainstream media organisations, including the ABC and major newspapers, calling for particular actions to be taken that serve their interests.

The urgency and success of these demands brings about a culture of fear in which journalists, producers and board members find themselves scrambling to avoid a backlash. This leads to abrupt dismissals and retractions that ironically amplify the very issues these lobbyists seek to bury – the disproportionate response around the keffiyeh controversy at the Sydney Theatre Company in 2023 is a clear example of this. Rather than allowing a minor element after the end of the performance to pass unnoticed – the cast wearing keffiyehs on stage to show their support for the people of Gaza – the loud objections and funding threats turned a small, local matter into national news over several months.

The influence that flows from such well-connected minority groups is neither universal nor reflective of entire communities; many within the broader Australian Jewish community do not support these heavy-handed tactics. Instead, they see this kind of clampdown on discussion and criticism of Israeli government policy as counterproductive and damaging to the community’s reputation.

However, the response from these people within the Israel lobby has been to double down, and even attack other members from the Jewish community with whom they disagree with, as shown by the recent commentary from prominent Zionist lobbyist Mark Leibler, where he claimed that “nothing is worse than those Jews who level totally unfounded allegations of genocide and ethnic cleansing against the State of Israel. They are repulsive and revolting human beings… they are vicious antisemites”.

The broader outcome is the disastrous effect on journalism, where editors and reporters grow uneasy about even the most factual commentary related to Israel or its policies. In the case of Lattouf, the abrupt manner in which she was removed – before even completing her week-long shift – reflects how immediate and intense the lobbying efforts can be, and how swiftly corporate entities can fold under that pressure.

This environment of excessive sensitivity is made even more complicated by the fact that legitimate criticism of any government – Israeli or otherwise – can be conflated with antisemitism if those protesting the criticism choose to label it as such. Most observers strongly condemn genuine antisemitism, and no one should be singled out or vilified purely for their ethnic or religious background. Yet criticism of policy decisions and human rights records is integral to a functioning democracy. The capacity to examine the actions of governments is considered a core right, and to suppress that right risks eroding the very democratic principles it aims to protect. Exaggerating claims of fear or “being triggered” can also backfire, as it invites skepticism about the genuineness of those concerns, creating a situation where all expressions of genuine alarm risk being dismissed.

The ABC’s choice to remove Lattouf immediately – and, it seems, unlawfully – has led to costly legal proceedings, and these outcomes cannot be dismissed as inconsequential, as they show a mismanagement of both public trust and public funding. At the same time, this debacle – which could have been easily avoided if senior managers had some backbone and credibility – has chipped away at the ABC’s reputation for independence and integrity; when a publicly funded broadcaster caters to one narrow interest group instead of defending staff who are simply relaying credible information, audiences see a loss of editorial courage and it raises the questions about how easily supposed fundamentals of a liberal democracy can be eroded.

Although nearly all mainstream politicians publicly condemn antisemitism, few appear willing to address the merging of legitimate critique with hate speech, avoiding the risk of being targeted themselves. Over time, this removes robust discussion from public debate, replacing it with self-censorship – which is what the Israel lobby wants to achieve. This weakens democracy from within, discouraging the free exchange of ideas and relegating important conflicts – whether it’s domestic or international – down to whispered conversations, rather than open debate.

The unease reflects a more global phenomenon within the Western world, especially in the United States, where fear, partisanship, and systematic attacks on media outlets have contributed to more fragile institutions. Although the context for Australia is different, these signs are similar to those in other countries where the constant pressure from lobby groups chips away at journalistic independence and the capacity for transparent public dialogue.

Silencing political views

There is a pattern of incidents involving the dismissal of media figures for views and perspectives that are different to those of specific vested interests: the journalist Mike Carlton was suspended over incidents relating to an article he published about Gaza in 2014, and the cartoonist Glen le Lievre was reprimanded by the Sydney Morning Herald after depicting an Israeli man casually observing the bombing of Gaza from a loungeroom couch. Neither were disseminating hateful material; instead, they were reflecting on events unfolding at that time.

The fact that such commentary could prompt intense pushback from the Israel lobby – enough to cost individuals their jobs – shows the fragility of free expression where certain topics are raised. More recently, the abrupt sacking of the cricket commentator Peter Lalor shows how far-reaching these pressures can be: he posted about Gaza on his personal social media, and before long, objections were voiced to his employer, SEN Radio that, somehow, hearing Lalor’s voice over the radio and commentating on test cricket from Sri Lanka was “triggering”.

Discomfort or disagreement over someone’s views is neither unusual nor inherently dangerous in a pluralistic society. Far more concerning is the perception that a handful of influential figures can force employers, editors, or broadcasters to fire individuals whose opinions stray beyond narrow parameters. Despite the obvious disconnect between Lalor’s tweets about Gaza and his capacity to offer cricket commentary, the chain of events suggests that even minor social media activity – totally unrelated to the job itself – can lead to immediate action if enough pressure is applied. This approach does not align with values of open debate and diversity of opinion; it instead entrenches a system in which certain ideas can be suppressed with little due process.

It also brings up questions about other journalists who have similarly been “disappeared”: the contracts for the ABC’s Sarah Macdonald and Simon Marnie were inexplicably not extended in December 2024, even though both had been successful journalists at the ABC for many years and, in the case of Macdonald, a high-rating and popular presenter of the Morning program on Sydney radio. Is there anything in their social media accounts or public engagements that was perceived to have been offensive to the Israel lobby – real or imagined – and were there any harassing phone calls made to ABC management at the time to remove these journalists? This is an issue that would be worth investigating because nothing else seems to make sense.

Some defenders of these decisions claim that particular forms of speech constitute a genuine threat, invoking antisemitism or other forms of bigotry. While it is critical to condemn actual hatred toward any minority – at every occasion – it is also critical to recognise that critique of the actions of a government – in this case, Israel – and calls to end violence do not constitute hate speech or antisemitism. They are part of legitimate, if uncomfortable, public discourse. When the label of antisemitism is overused or misapplied, it loses its potency in confronting real prejudice. And at the same time, the conflation of all criticism of Israel with antisemitism has become a powerful tool to silence journalists, commentators, and others who might otherwise raise credible objections to Israel’s policies and actions in the Middle East.

The public expects that journalists, commentators, and political figures can express their perspectives without fear of a sudden, career-ending phone call to their employer and it is vital to recognise the difference between expressing strong positions on international affairs and inciting genuine harm. While genuine incitement requires intervention, routine expression of political or humanitarian concerns should not. By turning so swiftly to sackings and public condemnations, media institutions allow vocal lobbies to skew public discourse in ways that favours secrecy and compliance over truthful, in-depth reporting.

If the numerous dismissals of respected professionals illustrates anything, it is that capitulating to demands premised on “triggered” or offended individuals, without regard for the actual substance or impact of the speech, erodes trust in all media platforms. Many Australians – whether they share the same political beliefs or not – recognise that a true exchange of ideas will inevitably feature disagreements, and only in extreme cases should there be calls for someone’s removal.

What has happened to these journalists and commentators shows how perilously close newsrooms and broadcasters have become to giving up fundamental freedoms when confronted by small but persistent and secretive voices, such as the Israel lobby. Once it becomes easier to sack commentators than to accept challenging viewpoints, society has lost sight of a key part of democracy – the capacity to engage in dialogue and hold power to account, even when the truth hurts.