Mary Kostakidis is a renowned and respected journalist with over 20 years’ experience, best known for her well-regarded work with SBS television. But now she faces legal action over comments about Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza.
She has long stood up for injustices against others – in her support of Julian Assange, David McBride, Dan Duggan and many others.
But now the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA), one of Australia’s major pro-Israel lobby groups, has her in their sights with the CEO of the Federation, Alon Cassuto, lodging a complaint against her with the Australian Human Rights Commission.
The complaint includes reference to Kostakidis’ Twitter post from 4 January, which reposted a link to a speech by Hezbollah secretary general Hassan Nasrallah where he referred to Palestine and Gaza in which he said:
“Here, it is going to be very difficult for you. If you want to be secure, if you want to feel secure, you have an American passport, go back to the United States. You have a British passport, go back to the UK. Here you don’t have a future, from the river to the sea the land of Palestine is for the Palestinian people and the Palestinian people only.”
Kostakidis prefaced the link to the speech with the comment: “The Israeli govt getting some of its own medicine. Israel has started something it can’t finish with this genocide.’
At a press conference called on Sunday 14 July, regarding the complaint lodged against Kostakidis in the Australian Human Rights Commission, Jeremy Leibler, the ZFA President, said: “Mr Cassuto is asking for an apology to the Australian Jewish Community for the impact of this slur and for the offending tweets to be removed.
“But this is really about sending a message as well to hold Mary Kostakidis to account, someone with a very significant platform who we believe is misusing her platform, but I would hope that this would send a message to all Australians that we cannot bring this sort of hate speech from the other side of the world. We cannot bring conflicts from the other side of the world over here on the streets of Australia.”
It should be noted that the Zionists Federation CEO Cassuto is represented by law firm Arnold Bloch Leibler. A senior partner there, and father of Zionist Federation president Jeremy Leibler, is well known Zionist lobbyist Mark Leibler whose activities were investigated by Michael West Media in November last year.
Weaponising a phrase
In response to a question stating that the words used in the speech specifically don’t say ethnic cleansing, Jeremy Leibler said, “’From the river to the sea the land [sic] is for the Palestinian people and for the Palestinian people only.’ And when you have regard to the fact that you have an accomplished Australian journalist with a platform sharing this comment made by the Secretary General Hassam Nasrallah of Hezbollah – a terrorist organisation proscribed in Australia – I think it’s pretty clear and pretty explicit what it’s calling for.”
Kostakidis has publicly responded by pointing out the job of a journalist to provide information from both sides of a conflict.
She said: “The statements he [Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah] is making are identical to statements made by the Israeli leadership and members of the Knesset: Israel for Jews only, Israel from the River to the Sea – the latter phrase is in a founding document of the [Likud party], and in the map used by Netanyahu.” [Note: The original sentence by Kostakidis stated ‘State of Israel’, but this has since been corrected by her to ‘Likud party’.]
Further, the expression “from the river to the sea” has been used in various contexts related to the Middle East, often with political implications.
The claims of some early Zionist groups were for the borders of a future Jewish state encompassing all of Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea; in fact, some wanted the new state to extend beyond the Jordan River and encompass Trans-Jordan. Some prominent Zionist groups today, with close ties to the Netanyahu government, still advocate for this outcome.
In the mid-20th century, Palestinian groups, including the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), adopted the phrase. It was used to signify their aspiration for a Palestinian state encompassing the same territory, replacing Israel. The Hamas Charter (1988) used similar language in its original charter, calling for an Islamic state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
In recent years, the phrase has been used in political discourse, protests, and social media. It is sometimes chanted at rallies or included in slogans by both pro-Palestinian activists and those opposing Israeli policies. The interpretation and connotations of the phrase vary widely, with some seeing it as a call for the ending of the state of Israel, while others view it as a call for equal rights and a binational state.
Zionist interpretations
The Zionist Federation of Australia confirmed in its press release that Alon Cassuto, CEO of the Zionist Federation of Australia, filed the complaint in the Human Rights Commission in the context of ‘thousands of Jewish Australians have been victimised, harassed and racially vilified. Businesses have been boycotted and people’s safety threatened’ since October 7, 2023.”
Mr Cassuto also said that his “intention is not to stifle legitimate discussion or free speech, but to stand against unlawful hate speech.”
Just as the public generally doesn’t want racism or antisemitism in Australia, most also don’t want any repression of free speech that precludes valid criticisms of the policies and actions of any State, including the state of Israel.
Antisemitism is defined as hostility or prejudice against Jewish people — but some want it to include criticism of Israel and Israeli policy.
The State of Israel is separate and distinct from the Jewish people and from the Jewish religion, as witness the many Jewish protesters all over the world taking to the streets to protest the actions of Israel in Gaza and in the West Bank.
Like any State, its actions and official statements should be subject to public scrutiny and criticism, with as much information as possible available to those applying the scrutiny.
Redefining free speech
Even before October 7, 2023, there seems to have been bipartisan political support in Australia for suppressing both critics and criticism of actions of the State of Israel.
A 2019 International Institute for Strategic Leadership Dialogue in Israel was aimed at protecting Israel from international criticism, protecting its economic interests, and limiting free speech. Australians attending were ‘bipartisan’, with Liberal’s then Attorney General Christian Porter, Christopher Pyne and Labor’s Richard Marles in attendance.
Of particular interest, as seen in the linked video, is the discussion of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism in the use of ‘soft power’.
The push by some Jewish umbrella organizations for a new definition of antisemitism is extremely important to bear in mind as part of the background to the claims against Kostakidis.
This ‘new’ definition was never drafted by the IHRA with the intention of being used to create a special position for the Jewish State, but it tends to conflate antisemitism with ‘anti-Israel’ activity and if given legal effect would provide a special shield for the Israeli State from valid criticisms.
There is no need for special definitions of proscribed conduct applying to any State or indeed any ethnic or religious group in Australia. There are already in place protections against hate speech and religious and racial vilification for the equal protection of all people.
Kenneth Stern, former American Jewish Committee’s antisemitism expert and lead drafter of what was then called the “working definition of antisemitism”, warned in a 2019 opinion piece that the definition would be used to stifle academic freedom and free speech.
In April last year it was reported that “More than 100 Israeli and international civil society organisations have asked the United Nations to reject a controversial definition of antisemitism because it is being ‘misused’ to protect Israel from legitimate criticism.
“The groups have written to the UN secretary general, António Guterres, saying he should resist pressure from Israel to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) ‘working definition of antisemitism’. The definition has been accepted by the US State Department, several European governments including the UK and Germany, and EU bodies, after strong lobbying by pro-Israel groups and others.
“Adoption of the definition by governments and institutions is often framed as an essential step in efforts to combat antisemitism. In practice, however, the IHRA definition has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism, including in the US and Europe.”
It is therefore unsettling to hear Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, state publicly at the National Press Club on 9 July, that:
“I think I’ll take a leaf out of Jillian Segal’s book, she was asked at the press conference this morning whether the government should adopt the IHRA definition and she said she’s going to be giving that consideration and give advice to the government about it. I will await her advice.
“And on your last point, is criticism of Israel, anti-Semitic? It absolutely can be. Not always, I criticise the government of Israel from time to time, I don’t think I’m anti-Semitic. Other people criticise the government of Israel, and I don’t think they’re anti-Semitic. But when people are singling out Israel and applying a standard to Israel that they do not apply to other countries, then potentially, there’s anti-Semitism going on….
“When people apply to Israel a standard that is not applied to other countries then potentially it’s anti-Semitism. When people deny to Israel its right to exist. When people pretend that Israel was not created by the United Nations in 1948, and is absolutely a full member of the United Nations, those sorts of things. I can go on but I’d be giving you a long list of anti-Semitic approaches to Israel.
“I’d say again, as a matter of principle, when people criticise Israel in a way that they would not dream of applying to another country, then you are at the point of anti-Semitism…”
On 14 July 2024, it was reported that, “The complaint against Kostakidis is the highest profile case relating to the war on Gaza to come before the Human Rights Commission and will test the strength of the existing Racial Discrimination Act, which Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus has promised to bolster.”
The lobby at work
Now stop to consider the way the Israel lobby has infiltrated governments, the US being the prime example with its Congress “owned by Israel“.
Consider the techniques it has used to repress criticism: the Al Jazeera series “The Lobby” gives real insight into the iniquitous implementation of anti-democratic strategies by the Lobby in the USA. It is eye-opening viewing.
Unfortunately the same sort of processes may be at work here, and the Kostakidis case brings this potential starkly to light.
The Zionist Federation of Australia’s actions may tend to corral or silence Kostakidis as an influential critic of Israel. If it doesn’t succeed against her in this case, it could serve to wedge the Australian Government into amending the Racial Discrimination Act to incorporate the IHRA definition of antisemitism which will in turn have the desired chilling effect on critics of Israel.
Kostakidis is smart enough to know what is at work here and the weight resting on her shoulders. Hopefully – and in fact, probably, given the courage and independence of mind she has demonstrated in her long and distinguished contributions to informed discourse in Australian society – she will resist these attempts to silence her.
We owe, and must give, Kostakidis our full support, and we owe it to ourselves to make sure our legislative processes are not manipulated into giving any special legal advantage to any particular group or state.
The implications of this complaint against a journalist must be closely considered by the media and the broader public. The successful defence by Kostakidis of the complaint is crucial to free speech and freedom of the press in Australia.
_
Before you go…
If you appreciate Declassified Australia’s investigations, remember that it all costs both time and money. Join our 9,000 followers and get our Newsletter for updates. And we’d really appreciate if you could subscribe to Declassified Australia to support our ongoing investigations. Thank you.
