Published: 23 August 2018
Last updated: 4 March 2024
The actual sentence was: “The final solution to the immigration problem is, of course, a popular vote… What we do need is a plebiscite for us to decide who comes here”. While the speech is indeed bigoted and foolish, it’s clear he is not endorsing the mass extermination of Jews or any other religion.
Australian Jewish groups ECAJ, AIJAC and ADC released statements criticising Anning’s message. Oddly, none of their statements made any reference to Islam or Muslims, who were the main targets of vilification in Anning’s speech.
They focussed instead on the benefits of an immigration program that promotes diversity and on the offence caused to the Jewish community and Holocaust survivors by use of the phrase ”final solution”.
Whilst the phrase has no place in any speech about Australia’s Muslim population, there were several other intentionally vilifying aspects of Anning’s speech which were much more problematic.
Anning called for citizens to have access to firearms for “self-defence”, made transphobic comments about the Safe Schools sexual education program, and claimed that ethnic cultural diversity reduces social cohesion.
He ignored the fact that back in the day when all Australian citizens were British or Europeans, Aboriginal people endured a life that was the opposite of ‘social cohesion’.
Anning also claimed the first terrorist attack on Australian soil was in 1915, erasing the previous 127 years of racial and politically motivated violence against Aboriginal people.
He also claimed that “while not all Muslims are terrorists, certainly all terrorists these days are Muslims.” Has Anning never heard of the Bat-Ayin underground, Peter Knight, Bodu Bela Sena, Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik or Dylann Roof?
After the Energy Minister, he defended himself in a television interview by claiming he was a “friend of the Jewish community”, on the grounds that he voted against Australian funding of the Palestinian Authority, which was opposed by Labor and the Greens.
The conservative commentator Andrew Bolt made a similar argument regarding his support for Israel after JCCV President Jennifer Huppert, in response to his “tidal wave of immigrants” article, accused him of fostering racism in the r community ”I expect an apology from Huppert for this cheap smear. Not a word in my article disparaged Jews”, claimed Bolt.
Bolt wrote later: “To paint me as a critic of Jews is not just a smear but utterly laughable, given my record of defending Jews and Israel, and raising money for Jewish charities.”
The advocacy of both Anning and Bolt for the policies of the Netanyahu government provides little comfort for many pluralistic Jews and liberal Zionists.
If either of these men really supported the Jewish community, they would be advocating for an Australia where the needs of the stranger, orphan and widow are at the centre of policy-making priorities.
The advocacy of both Anning and Bolt for the policies of the Netanyahu government provides little comfort for many pluralistic Jews and liberal Zionists. If either of these men really supported the Jewish community, they would be advocating for an Australia where the needs of the stranger, orphan and widow are at the centre of policy-making priorities.
In June, Senator Anning - inspired by US President Donald Trump - filed a notice of motion in the Senate seeking to have Australia recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move its embassy to the western side of Jerusalem. The motion was defeated in the senate by 50-4. The motion did not call for Australia to move its representative office in Ramallah to East Jerusalem.
While moving both embassies to the capital could have made a powerful statement by the Australian people about the status of Jerusalem, calling to move only one has done little to improve the lives of those who call the city home.
At a time when the policies of the Netanyahu government make the likelihood of a political solution to the conflict more distant than ever, to be a friend of Israel today must include advocacy for compromise on both sides. For liberal Zionists, being “pro-Israel” must also include a solid call for Israel to preserve its Jewish and democratic character as articulated in the Declaration of Independence. It must also condemn all forms of violence against civilians from both sides.
Bob Katter, who serves as the leader of Anning’s party, defended his speech against claims of anti-Semitism by saying that “Jews stand their ground, they inspire me. That may be one of the many reasons why our party sees itself as the Jewish representative party in the parliament, and I’m proud of it.”
If the Katter’s Australia Party was keen to accurately represent the views of the majority of Jewish Australians, it would heed the calls of numerous resolutions of Jewish peak bodies that called for same sex marriage, and an end to harsh policies against asylum seekers, both of which his party opposed.
Hopefully, Anning’s bigoted speech and problematic defence will lead to a renewed conversation about what it means to truly be a friend of Israel and the Jewish community. If this change in perception takes into account the diversity of Jews’ visions for Australia and Israel, then perhaps some long-term benefit can come of his diatribe.
Main image: Andrew Bolt, with Senator Fraser Anning (inset)
