The most effective political power isn’t obtained through governments, legislation or formal institutions. Sometimes it works through other means: vexatious litigation, lobbying, money and the ability of well-connected organisations to impose consequences on people who challenge powerful interests. The experiences of former SBS journalist Mary Kostakidis in Australia and musician Macklemore in the United States raise an important question about criticism of Israel and advocacy for Palestine: what happens when speaking out carries a personal, professional or financial price?
Kostakidis spent almost two years dealing with complaints and litigation arising from social-media activity concerning Gaza and Israel. The Federal Court proceedings ultimately ended without a judgment after the Zionist Federation of Australia discontinued its case, meaning there was no judicial finding that Kostakidis had breached any laws at all. Yet the length and cost of the process matter politically as much as the eventual legal outcome. When prominent journalists, academics, artists or activists see somebody subjected to prolonged litigation over their political expression, the consequences go far beyond the person involved, encouraging others to work out the potential cost before speaking publicly about Israel, Gaza, Zionism or Palestinian rights, and decide whether it’s worth it.
After bringing his outspoken support for Palestine to enormous audiences during Ed Sheeran’s US tour, Macklemore faced condemnation and pressure from pro-Israel organisations and influential figures within American business and philanthropy. He was subsequently removed from the remaining dates of the tour but whatever combination of commercial, contractual and political considerations resulted in that decision, the message received by other performers is also difficult to ignore: political advocacy will have consequences for access to stages, audiences and income.
The comparison becomes more bizarre when compared with the entertainment industry’s treatment of Kanye West, whose record includes outrageous antisemitic statements, praise for Adolf Hitler and the use of Nazi images. The inconsistencies surrounding who receives access to major venues – and under what circumstances free speech, contracts or commercial considerations are used – raise legitimate questions about where the Zionist red line is actually drawn.
In a functioning democracy – if that’s what Australia and the US really are – criticism of Israel must be treated like the criticism of any other state: judged according to what is actually said, rather than automatically conflated with hostility towards Jewish people. If journalists, musicians and public figures begin censoring themselves because they fear litigation, professional exclusion or reputational campaigns, the boundaries of political debate have already been narrowed – without parliament passing a single law.
