In a powerful commencement address at Dartmouth College in 1953, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower cautioned against the suppression of knowledge, stating, “Don’t join the book burners. Don’t think you are going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed.” His words, spoken during a time of intense political scrutiny and fear, resonate profoundly today, particularly in the context of pro-Israel lobbying in Australia. This lobbying often aims to silence criticism of Israel’s policies, especially regarding its treatment of Palestinians, reflecting a modern form of “book burning” that stifles dissent and obscures evidence of human rights violations.

This post explores the mechanisms of pro-Israel lobbying in Australia, the strategies employed to suppress criticism, and the complicity of Australian politicians in facilitating Israel’s narratives. It argues that these actions undermine the democratic principles of free speech and intellectual freedom, betraying Eisenhower’s call for open inquiry.

Eisenhower’s Warning: The Perils of Concealing Truth

Eisenhower’s remarks were a direct response to the purges of the McCarthy era, where fear of communism led to the blacklisting and suppression of dissenting voices. His metaphor of “book burning” evokes the authoritarian regimes that have historically destroyed knowledge to control narratives. Eisenhower’s insistence on personal judgment – “our own ideas of decency” – rejects externally imposed censorship. This principle is alarmingly applicable to contemporary efforts to silence criticism of Israel, where pro-Israel lobbying groups deploy tactics to erase evidence of Israel’s faults, such as alleged war crimes in Gaza, from public discourse. By framing dissent as antisemitic or unacceptable, these groups seek to conceal truths that challenge Israel’s narrative, a practice Eisenhower would likely condemn as antithetical to democratic values.

Pro-Israel Lobbying in Australia: Structure and Influence

Pro-Israel lobbying in Australia is led by organisations such as the Australia Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA), and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ). AIJAC, often regarded as the most influential, operates as a privately funded think tank with close ties to conservative politics in Australia and Israel’s Likud party. These groups engage in multifaceted advocacy, including media monitoring, political lobbying, public relations, and organising sponsored trips to Israel for parliamentarians and journalists. While they claim to defend Israel’s interests and combat antisemitism, critics argue that their actions often prioritise suppressing criticism over promoting open dialogue.

The scale of lobbying is significant. Between June 2018 and April 2022, 18% of all non-government-sponsored parliamentary trips were to Israel, far exceeding other destinations. These trips, often funded by AIJAC or businessman Albert Dadon’s International Institute for Strategic Leadership Dialogue, expose politicians to curated narratives about Israel, fostering sympathy and alignment with its policies. Former Foreign Minister Bob Carr has criticised these trips as “propaganda exercises,” arguing they ensure that “no matter what Israel does… it will never be criticised by Canberra.” Such efforts align with Eisenhower’s warning about concealing faults, as they cultivate a political environment where evidence of Israel’s actions – such as illegal settlements or military operations in Gaza – is downplayed or ignored.

Mechanisms of Silencing Criticism

Pro-Israel lobbying groups employ several strategies to silence criticism of Israel, effectively “burning” dissenting voices from public discourse. These mechanisms include:

1. Conflating Criticism with Antisemitism: A

primary tactic is equating criticism of Israel’s policies with antisemitism, delegitimising critics and intimidating them into silence. For instance, the Australian government appointed a special envoy to combat antisemitism, a move that critics argue risks stifling legitimate criticism by framing it as hate speech. This conflation is evident in cases like the dismissal of ABC journalist Antoinette Lattouf, who was sacked after sharing a Human Rights Watch post about Gaza. Leaked messages revealed that the Lawyers for Israel group pressured the ABC, threatening legal action to secure her termination. Such actions create a chilling effect, discouraging journalists, academics, and public figures from speaking out.

2. Targeting Employment and Livelihoods:

Lobbying groups have targeted individuals across various sectors – media, medicine, academia, and government – for their criticism of Israel. A report documented a “government-subsidised workforce of Israel lobbyists” pressuring employers to discipline or dismiss critics. Examples include Farah Abdurahman, a government advisor whose contract was terminated after pro-Israel lobbyists alerted media and the NSW Premier’s office to her social media posts, and a Qantas flight attendant bullied after expressing pro-Palestinian views. These cases illustrate a pattern where critics face professional repercussions, effectively erasing their voices from public discourse.

3. Media Manipulation and Pressure: Pro-Israel groups closely monitor media

coverage, pressuring outlets to align with Israel’s narrative. AIJAC’s Australia/Israel Review has targeted independent outlets for publishing articles exposing Israel’s violations of international law, accusing them of bias. Mainstream media, influenced by figures like Rupert Murdoch, often amplify pro-Israel perspectives while marginalising Palestinian voices. This selective framing conceals evidence of Israel’s actions, aligning with Eisenhower’s critique of hiding faults.

4. Political Lobbying and Public Statements:

Lobbying groups leverage access to politicians to shape policy and public narratives. In 2023, the ZFA drafted a statement signed by six of seven living former Australian prime ministers, condemning Hamas but omitting Israel’s role in Gaza’s civilian deaths. This demonstrates the lobby’s ability to enlist high-profile voices to sanitise Israel’s actions, exacerbating community division.

These mechanisms collectively suppress evidence of Israel’s policies, creating a sanitised narrative that aligns with Eisenhower’s metaphor of book burning. By targeting critics’ livelihoods, manipulating media, and influencing policy, pro-Israel groups ensure that dissenting “books” are removed from the public “library.”

Australian Politicians: Facilitating Israel’s Narratives

Australian politicians, particularly from the Labor and Liberal parties, have played a significant role in enabling pro-Israel lobbying and facilitating Israel’s narratives. This complicity manifests in several ways:

1. Bipartisan Support for Israel: Both major parties have historically aligned with Israel, often ignoring evidence of its human rights violations. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, despite co-founding the Parliamentary Friends of Palestine, has faced criticism for his government’s reluctance to condemn Israel’s actions in Gaza. This alignment reflects a broader trend where politicians prioritise diplomatic and economic ties over accountability.

2. Endorsing Censorship Frameworks: The appointment of the special envoy to combat antisemitism risks institutionalising censorship by framing criticism of Israel as hate speech. Politicians’ support for such measures facilitates the lobby’s efforts to silence dissent, concealing evidence of Israel’s actions under the guise of combating prejudice.

3. Amplifying Pro-Israel Narratives: Politicians often amplify pro-Israel narratives through public statements and media appearances. The 2023 statement by former prime ministers, orchestrated by the ZFA, is a stark example. By failing to acknowledge Israel’s role in Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, these leaders facilitate a narrative that obscures evidence of civilian suffering.

4. Ignoring Public Sentiment: Public opinion in Australia increasingly favors Palestinian rights, yet politicians’ alignment with pro-Israel lobbying often disregards this sentiment. By ignoring constituents’ concerns, politicians facilitate narratives that conceal Israel’s actions, betraying democratic accountability.

This complicity is not merely passive but an active choice to prioritise lobbying pressures over evidence-based policy. As Eisenhower cautioned, concealing faults through silence or selective storytelling undermines the pursuit of truth, a principle Australian politicians appear to sidestep in their engagement with pro-Israel groups.

The Broader Implications: Democracy and Intellectual Freedom

Eisenhower’s warning about book burning extends to any attempt to suppress knowledge, a practice that threatens Australia’s democratic fabric. Pro-Israel lobbying, by silencing criticism and shaping narratives, sets a precedent for broader censorship. If dissent on Israel can be curtailed, other contentious issues – climate change, indigenous rights, or corporate accountability – could face similar suppression. The chilling effect on journalists, academics, and activists stifles the diversity of thought essential to democracy.

Moreover, this censorship distorts public understanding of the Israel-Palestine conflict. By concealing evidence of Israel’s actions, Australians are denied access to the full spectrum of perspectives. This violates Eisenhower’s call to “read every book,” as it restricts the public’s ability to form judgments based on all available evidence. The lobby’s influence over media and policy creates an intellectual environment where only sanctioned narratives prevail, undermining the democratic ideal of informed debate.

Mary Kostakidis

Mary Kostakidis, a prominent Australian journalist, is currently embroiled in a Federal Court case initiated by the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) in April 2025, titled “Zionist Federation of Australia v. Mary Kostakidis”. The ZFA alleges that two retweets by Kostakidis in January 2024, sharing a video of a speech by the late Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) by promoting antisemitic hate speech. Kostakidis’ comment above one retweet, referencing Israel’s actions in Gaza as “genocide,” was interpreted by the ZFA as endorsing Nasrallah’s call for the ethnic cleansing of Jews. The case, following failed mediation at the Australian Human Rights Commission in 2024, seeks a declaration of unlawful conduct, removal of the posts, an apology, and legal costs.

Kostakidis, represented by XD Law, defends her posts as political commentary protected under section 18D, which exempts good-faith public interest statements. She argues her intent was to critique Israel’s actions in Gaza, not to incite antisemitism, and accuses the ZFA of attempting to silence dissent by conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism. The case has ignited debate on X and in independent media, with supporters framing it as a critical test of press freedom and critics of the ZFA’s action likening it to global efforts to suppress criticism of Israel. Conversely, the ZFA and its allies maintain that Kostakidis’ posts crossed into hate speech, citing Nasrallah’s terrorist affiliations.

As of April 16, 2025, the case remains in early proceedings, with no judgment published. Its outcome could significantly impact how section 18C is applied to journalists covering contentious geopolitical issues, potentially chilling free speech or reinforcing protections for political commentary. The case also reflects broader tensions in Australia, where the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism by institutions like Universities Australia in 2025 has fueled debates over distinguishing criticism of Israel from antisemitism. Kostakidis’ crowdfunding campaign for legal costs underscores strong public support for her defense, highlighting the case’s stakes for journalism and public discourse.

Countering Censorship: A Path Forward

To resist this modern book burning, Australians must heed Eisenhower’s call for open inquiry. First, individuals should seek unfiltered sources to bypass mainstream biases. Second, civil society must challenge the conflation of criticism with antisemitism, advocating for clear distinctions between policy critique and hate speech. Third, voters should demand accountability from politicians, pressing for policies that reflect public sentiment and international law rather than lobbying pressures.

Universities, media outlets, and advocacy groups can amplify marginalised voices, fostering spaces for open debate. Initiatives like the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) provide counter-narratives, highlighting Israel’s violations and advocating for justice. By refusing to “join the book burners,” Australians can uphold the right to question, critique, and seek truth, even when it challenges powerful interests.

Conclusion

Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1953 address remains a powerful rebuke of censorship, applicable to the contemporary dynamics of pro-Israel lobbying in Australia. Groups like AIJAC, through tactics like conflating criticism with antisemitism, targeting livelihoods, manipulating media, and leveraging political access, seek to silence dissent and conceal evidence of Israel’s actions. Australian politicians, by endorsing these efforts and amplifying sanitised narratives, facilitate a form of intellectual book burning that obscures truth and undermines democracy. To counter this, Australians must embrace dissent, challenge censorship, and hold power accountable. Only by rejecting the concealment of faults can society ensure that truth remains unburned.