Aa
  • Read, Watch, Listen
  • TJI Series
  • Community Action
  • Events
  • Zedi
Follow us and continue the conversation
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Test yourself with the TJI Quiz!

Adjust size of text

Aa

Follow us and continue the conversation

  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube

Your saved articles

You haven't saved any articles

What are you looking for?

Original reporting, insightful analysis and diverse views, delivered straight to your inbox

  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Your support fuels our mission to inform, entertain and inspire.

The Jewish Independent is bound by the Standards of Practice of the Australian Press Council. If you believe the Standards may have been breached, you may approach The Jewish Independent or make a complaint to the Australian Press Council in writing at www.presscouncil.org.au. The Council may also be contacted on 1800 025 712.

  • Our Story
  • Contact us
  • Our Team
  • Support us
  • Guidelines
  • Pitch your idea
  • Republishing us
  • Community Action
  • Our Awards
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Aboriginal FlagTorres Strait Islanders Flag

The Jewish Independent acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the Traditional Owners and Custodians of Country throughout Australia. We pay our respects to Elders past and present, and strive to honour their rich history of storytelling in our work and mission.

© The Jewish Independent 2026All Rights Reserved
Website design and development by Your Creative, MelbourneTerms & ConditionsPrivacy Policy
HomeRead, Watch, ListenArts & Culture
OpinionArts & CultureAustralia

Randa Abdel-Fattah is a perverse poster child for free speech

I find Randa Abdel-Fattah’s rhetoric abhorrent and her positions hypocritical. But I don't think Adelaide Writers' Week should have cancelled her.
Isabelle Oderberg
Print this
Randa Abdel-Fattah keffiyeh

Randa Abdel-Fattah keffiyeh pictured on her Instagram account (@randaafattah)

Published: 13 January 2026

Last updated: 15 January 2026

Espousing your morals and ideas and living your life in alignment with them are two very different concepts.

Everyone wants to believe they are living a life of good decisions and moral fortitude, but in reality, there are lots of temptations that get in the way; sweet schadenfreude, the deliciousness of revenge, the hunger of greed, the power of ego, the pull of power or ambition and the list goes on.

Ultimately, it can be hard work to be the best person you can be, and I think in some respects, it should be. 

Some of the most central tenets of social justice include centring lived experience, not talking over people who have skin in the game, recognising and listening when other people try to explain their identity and applying the same standards and humanity to all people, rather than engaging in selective judgement of who is deserving. 

The left has been guilty of widespread hypocrisy over these values since October 7. I’ve watched the “rules of engagement” broken repeatedly by people I had previously called friends and colleagues and lost respect for so many people I previously admired. 

Nowhere has this hypocrisy been more evident than in the work and writing of Randa Abdel-Fattah. 

It therefore gives me not one iota of pleasure to write that pulling Randa Abdel-Fattah from the program of the Adelaide Writers' Week – and the way in which it was done – was a mistake.  

She calls for the recognition of the humanity of her own people, while simultaneously dehumanising others

These festivals are forums for conversation and debate, and this often means debating ideas that are controversial or with which many people disagree. Free speech is not without limitations of course, but arbitrary cancellation at the whim of a few (or even many) is not appropriate.

A debate on whether Randa Abdel-Fattah should have been programmed at Adelaide Writers' Week could be had, but it is mostly inconsequential at this juncture because Randa Abdel-Fattah was invited to appear at the festival, just as she was invited in 2023. She duly accepted that invitation and was then publicly uninvited with a statement containing a bizarre explanation that led to more questions and conjecture than clarity. 

It’s painful and ill-judged decision-making that prompted withdrawals from at least 180 other writers and has now led to the cancellation of Adelaide Writers' Week. This kind of kneejerk action is becoming all too common and exacerbates already explosive tensions.

Double standard

At the core of my current frustration is that although I disagree with the cancellation, I am equally offended by Abdel-Fattah’s current swift elevation to be the poster child for Australian free speech.

She has been outspoken about free speech, when it applies to the Palestinian cause, but she is perfectly willing to shut down those she perceives have a different view or perspective, or simply won’t toe her line.

After the debacle when writers withdrew from last year’s Bendigo Writers’ Festival over an attempted code of conduct, Abdel-Fattah wrote: “So many writers have withdrawn not only in solidarity but because this is an assault on our collective right to assert sovereignty of the words and language we use to name our oppression, critique the ideologies and racist logics and systems that seek to crush us.” 

She has also written extensively on the word “intifada” and its definition, as well as the definition of the phrase “from the river to the sea”, criticising any attempts to define these words in any way other than how she defines them. Given that they are words used by her community and her cause, she is justified in defining how they are used. 

But she simultaneously denies Zionists the same right to define this very word.  She has repeatedly ignored calls from the Jewish community to desist in defining the words “Zionist” and “Zionism” as the embodiment of all evil, an evil apparently worse than any other to exist in the history of mankind. 

For anyone who has ever had a conversation with a Jew or picked up a book, Zionism, like any political ideology, is a spectrum with a range of different views and perceptions and political persuasions.

If you genuinely believe in freedom of speech or artistic freedom, you cannot be selective about who gets to enjoy it

Clearly as a Palestinian Australian, she and her community has experienced decades of trauma, which makes it perplexing that she repeatedly engages in narrative inversion of any terminology used by Jews to describe their own trauma, applying it to her own experience or using it as a cudgel with which to repeatedly attempt to smash any Jews except the few she defines as acceptable.

In a move reminiscent of two arsonists shouting “fire” at each other while holding burning matches, she calls for the recognition of the humanity of her own people, while simultaneously dehumanising others.

Abdel-Fattah, and many of the supporters now crying "freedom of speech" signed a letter to the 2024 Perth Festival’s Literature and Ideas program calling for the removal of Jewish musician Deborah Conway over statements she made about the Gaza War.

She was also was a signatory on a letter to the Adelaide Festival in 2024 asking for the removal of Jewish American journalist and columnist Thomas Friedman after a blog post he wrote using examples from the animal kingdom to explain the Middle East. It was a glib and juvenile exercise, criticised for being racist and dehumanising. He later apologised.

Admittedly it was an “apology” about as effective as the non-apology issued by Nine newspapers this week over the deeply problematic cartoon by Wilcox, seemingly suggesting the “Zionist cabal” (cue octopus tentacle imagery) was responsible for coordinating the movement in favour of the Royal Commission into the Bondi terrorist attacks. 

We believe in free speech, or we don't

Thomas Friedman is a sometimes-controversial figure but a well-informed and outspoken journalist. The Adelaide Festival has claimed his invitation was not rescinded, although he has now spoken out to say he did not withdraw from the 2024 event of his own volition but was uninvited by organisers, who told him the timing would not work.

Despite everything, these invitations shouldn’t have been withdrawn, because we either believe in freedom of speech or we don’t. Though I do wonder how those now pulling out of the festival reconcile Abdel-Fattah’s rhetoric and hypocrisy with their desire to defend free speech. 

This entire affair smacks of those who signed an open letter calling on Creative Australia to reverse its decision to remove Khaled Sabsabi as the artist representing Australia at the Venice Biennale (as they should have). However,  more than 200 of the very same people signed a letter calling for Israel’s Biennale artist Ruth Patir to be removed.) 

So, they believe in artistic freedom, but only for some?  

Should Iranian artists be banned because their government imprisons women for not having their heads covered?

Should American artists be banned because Republicans are letting women die of sepsis rather than have an abortion?  

Should Australian artists be cancelled for living in a stolen country where Aboriginal people are dying in prison and some communities don’t even have clean water? 

Cultural safety

The director of Adelaide Writers' Week Louise Adler has now resigned in protest at the Adelaide Festival board’s decision to cancel Abdel-Fattah.

Adler, who has made her anti-Israel position very clear, previously programmed controversial activist/writers Mohammed El-Kurd (who has engaged in extensive propaganda and blood libels in his writing) and Susan Abulhawa (who has also engaged in blood libels and become a Russian apologist, describing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a "depraved Zionist trying to ignite World War III”.)

Former board member Tony Berg is reported to have resigned due to alleged bias in programming, describing Adler as choosing writers who have “a vendetta against Israel and Zionism”.

Certainly, if you’re looking for balance in views or politics, programming like this would not encourage any self-identified Zionist to attend if they were to be invited. They would be justified in seeing the Adelaide Writers’ Week as culturally unsafe for Zionists.

This is a position for which Abdel-Fattah has expressly advocated. (“If you are a Zionist, you have no claim or right to cultural safety. And it is my duty as somebody who fights all forms of oppression and violence to deny you a safe space to espouse your Zionist racist ideology,” she posted on social media.)  

Not that they’re being invited, as the arts sector more broadly grapples with anti-Jewish hate and exclusion.  

Since October 7, Abdel-Fattah has engaged in rape denialism, apparent celebration of the events of October 7 (which as we know saw the murder and kidnapping of children and other civilians) with a social media post glorifying the terrorists who parachuted over the boarder to commit war crimes and engaged in a prolonged and persistent campaign of hate-filled rhetoric and abject hypocrisy, with a cognitive dissonance that’s hard to fathom. 

She was part of the team who circulated the WhatsApp transcript and file containing a spreadsheet, identifying the people whose names appeared in the transcript, their jobs, private information and more, including my own name and details, despite never being in the WhatsApp group in question.

But she has never been convicted of any hate crime and, despite how offensive I and many others find her propaganda and hate, she has a right to speak.

A voice of reason

Lest you believe that there is no one able to hold more than one truth in today’s Australia, a small statement appeared on Facebook over the weekend that gave me hope. 

National treasure, poet Andy Jackson, is one of the authors who has withdrawn from Adelaide, published his letter to Adler with the caveat, "I do not want my decision to be taken as approval of the stated public views of Dr Randa Abdel-Fatah, which I personally do not find productive. I do not want to be recruited or labelled as “for” anything apart from peace, dialogue, compassion and creative thought." 

I wonder whether there is room in Australian literary spaces to hold more than one truth and have an honest and open conversation about whether any of the authors pulling out don’t agree with Abdel-Fattah’s rhetoric but feel obligated to pull out of the festival for what could be a multitude of potential reasons. 

Lists of which authors have pulled out and which are now circulating on social media, in epic McCarthyist-style intimidation. Legitimate activism can take many forms: bullying isn’t one of them. 

I find Randa Abdel-Fattah’s rhetoric abhorrent. It is my opinion that her hyperbole is intellectually disingenuous, and ethically and morally questionable. I believe, based on her writings and social media, her interest appears to be in conflict, hypocrisy and fomenting anti-Jewish sentiment. 

But I will still go to my grave defending her right to free speech as well as my right to rebut her assertions where I consider it appropriate or to simply not to listen to or engage with her spite-filled diatribes. 

Just three days after the Bondi terror attack, Abdel-Fattah posted on Instagram, addressing the people who had “quickly surrendering to the agenda of those who are using a horrific act of antisemitism to perpetuate and entrench anti-Palestinian racism”.

The first line of the post’s caption was, “Now is the time to insist on principles not abandon them.”

If you genuinely believe in freedom of speech or artistic freedom, you cannot be selective about who gets to enjoy it. Living your ideals in the real world is challenging. 

In the immortal words of Tom Hanks in the film A League of Their Own: “It's supposed to be hard…If it were easy, everyone would do it.” 

You might also like
  • What ‘Zionism’ means in Israel:  it’s not what you think
    Ittay Flescher
  • The hidden sting in the tail of Peter Beinart’s ‘dangerous’ idea
    Michael Visontay
  • When belonging becomes conditional
    Allen Zeesman
logomark.67a07ee3
We believe in the free flow of information

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, by using our Creative Commons licence

You might also like

    Tame
    Australia

    Tame apologises – but with little grace

    Deborah Stone 1
    neo-nazis white supremacists corowaTEST
    Royal CommissionOpinionAustralia

    Antisemitism, homophobia and a radical response to both

    Dennis Altman
    ANNIKA WELLS PRESSER
    Israel Hamas WarNewsAustralia

    No action to stop Hezbollah ally beaming antisemitic and anti-Israel content into Australia

    Michael Visontay

About the author

Isabelle Oderberg

Isabelle Oderberg

Isabelle Oderberg's journalism has appeared in The Age/SMH, Guardian, ABC, Meanjin and elsewhere. She also worked as a media and communications strategist across the not-for-profit sector. She is the author of Hard to Bear: Investigating the science and silence of miscarriage (Ultimo Press), and Chair of the Early Pregnancy Loss Coalition. Learn more at eplc.au.

More from the author

OpinionAustralia

The new McCarthyism: Anti-Zionist witch hunts

OpinionAustralia

‘Australian values’ – an immigration test with no answer

OpinionArts & Culture

I would have attended Bendigo Writers Festival… and said anything I liked

Comments15

  • Avatar of Alan

    Alan17 January at 01:08 am

    Adelaide Writers Week is almost entirely a tax-payer funded event. The view that a tax-payer funded event must support views that traumatize or vilify specific groups is simply wrong. Good governance requires that public funds are not used to marginalize the very taxpayers who provided the money. Expressed another way, freedom of speech prevents the government from jailing a writer for their views. It does not mandate that the government must pay for their hotel, flight, and stage.

    Furthermore, writers, of all people, must realize that “speech” is not simply a harmless exchange of words, but a powerful tool that can cause tangible harm. The government and the AWW board have a “duty of care” to ensure that the festival doesn’t become a platform for vilification. If a festival is funded by the public, it must serve the entire public.

  • Avatar of Habeeb Marouf

    Habeeb Marouf15 January at 03:11 pm

    ‘Randa repeatedly describes Australia as “a settler colony on stolen land”’ – where is the distortion in that? —– that Australia is a settler colony on stolen land is historical fact and also the core of gthe statement at the foot of this web page: “The Jewish Independent acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the Traditional Owners and Custodians of Country throughout Australia”. It’s illuminating that you are able to maintain this schismatic thinking, as it explains the failure to see the direct parallel between Aboriginal experience of settler colonial erasure and replacement with that of the Palestinians at the hands of European Zionists.

  • Avatar of Pat

    Pat15 January at 09:22 am

    If I could write like this, this is exactly what I would have written. The tragedy of our time is the death of debate. We cancel people we don’t agree with instead of challenging them in open fora. The Adelaide Festival is not a mass rally, it is a contained space. Abhorrent as her views are she should have been allowed to express them and made to defend them by people using facts and reason instead of hysteria and hatred.

  • Avatar of Guy

    Guy15 January at 06:07 am

    Free speech is about whether someone should be jailed for what they say. An invitation to a prestigious literary festival is something entirely different – a statement that someone is an honourable person who respects others and has something of literary value to say. Whether or not Abdel-Fattah, Neonazis, and the like belong in jail, they absolutely do not deserve an invitation to a literary festival.

  • Avatar of Alison Bevege

    Alison Bevege15 January at 01:31 am

    The problem wasn’t that Randa Abdel-Fattah was cancelled. The problem was that she was invited in the first place, and that her novels are on the school curriculum to turn children to an Islamist narrative. There are other writers.

    The Adelaide Writers Festival, if it invited her at all, should have sandwiched Randa on a panel between Harris Sultan, Avi Yemini and Rukshan Fernando. You are too apologetic towards this Muslim Brotherhood sympathiser. She herself had no problem signing petitions designed to deplatform ex-Muslim academic Ayaan Hirsi Ali and songbird Deborah Conway.

    She silences criticism of Islam and the bad behaviour of jihadis as “racist”.

    Randa repeatedly describes Australia as “a settler colony on stolen land” which is the exact same way she describes Israel: a claim so distorted as to be functionally false. She changed her Facebook profile picture to a Hamas paraglider on October 8, 2023, then claimed she didn’t know the death toll then.

    Hamas (Muslim Brotherhood) wants to eradicate Jews and replace Israel with an Islamic state, as they say in their founding charter. The Arab Muslims are using the misery of their “Palestinian” brothers and sisters to do this. Stop helping them.

  • Avatar of PM

    PM14 January at 09:44 pm

    Your article is analytically and ethically weak — not because of its political position, but because of how the argument is constructed.
    You repeatedly place Randa Abdel-Fattah’s name alongside communal trauma and security anxiety while formally denying any causal link. That is a recognised rhetorical device (apophasis): it allows suspicion to be created without ever being argued. The reader is left with an atmosphere of danger rather than a case that can be tested or debated.
    The same pattern appears in the use of terms such as “cultural sensitivity,” “community harm,” and “free-speech hypocrisy.” These operate as condensation symbols — they compress complex institutional and political questions into emotionally primed judgments, doing rhetorical work that evidence should be doing.
    Most concerning is the way criticism of Zionism is rhetorically collapsed into hostility toward Jewish people. That is not simply an ambiguity; it changes a political position into a moral transgression, which makes serious disagreement look like ethical failure.
    If Abdel-Fattah has crossed a line into antisemitism, that should be shown with her words and explained. If her participation creates real harm, the causal pathway should be set out. Without that, the piece reads less like analysis and more like polemic.

  • Avatar of Habeeb Marouf

    Habeeb Marouf14 January at 08:26 am

    Joseph, we are used to attempts at invoking historical Jewish suffering (primarily at the hands of Europeans please note) to deflect from the present issue of Zionist structural violence and injustice against Palestinians. I refer you to the many anti-Zionist Jews who put this far better than I, starting with Ilan Pappé and Avi Shlaim, noting also a quote from Louise Adler, who frames Jewish suffering correctly.

    “Many Jewish supporters of peace have argued that it is precisely because of our own long history of oppression and discrimination that we must stand with the Palestinian people and support their right to self-determination. I have come to the point where I think differently. It is not because of my own history that I have declared myself to be an ally of the struggle of Palestinian people, it is because as human beings injustice and inequality demand that we all care.”

    See Adler here: https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/louise-adler-to-be-silent-is-to-enable-violence/

    Your own history should not determine your moral lens.

    As I said earlier, an honest examination of the issue collapses the debate firmly on the side of the humanist, and, by extension, in favour of the Palestinians’ moral claim.

  • Avatar of Larry Stillman

    Larry Stillman14 January at 04:34 am

    She should not have been cancelled, but her views should be openly challenged. There now even less chance than ever of that happening. I blogged this.

    “Her ideas are challenging and disturbing. Soldarity politics which offers no nuance, no empathy to the other’s dilemmas and circumstances is cruel. Saying things like “expressions of Zionist fragility expose a calculated, purposeful strategy of insisting on the status of victim” is generalizing, conspiratorial and cruel, even to me, a post-Zionist who has been engaged against Zionist extremism in decades.

    Ruth Riegler in a recent critique of Max Blumenthal and others (… argued that some people on the left start to echo the “same Islamophobic rhetoric used by the far right” and are “like Tucker Carlson to mock evidence, relativise cruelty, and treat victims and their testimony as worthless”. It’s also in the same vein as some Zionist rhetoric. I think the same is going on here.

    Her views offer no out, no solution, just anger, rage and more confrontation.

    My full piece at https://tinyurl.com/5462pkbx

  • Avatar of David Mayes

    David Mayes14 January at 03:38 am

    Freedom of speech and artistic freedom are just ideas, they are not moral absolutes. In this case the AWW crew (the executive and the allied writers who withdrew) are using these ideas as fig leaves to disguise their calculated power play which in effect asserts “as a collective we own this festival and we will use it as our platform to engineer our political objectives.”

    I applaud Malinauskis for confronting the power play head on – let them blow up the AWW 2026. At least it opens up the possibility that AWW 2027 won’t be dominated by the same obsessively antizionist literary mafia.

  • Avatar of Joseph Silver

    Joseph Silver13 January at 11:58 pm

    Habeeb Maouf – your remarks are based on the lies and misinformation that have been part and parcel of the faked Palestinian narrative. You set yourself up as having a claim to the high moral ground and use that trope as an anti-Zionist battering stick. The Jews have known trials and tribulations for thousands of years and know from experience how our enemies speak. We will not be asphyxiated by your self-righteous contrived morality that tries to smother us with false justifications.

  • Avatar of Barbara Swartz

    Barbara Swartz13 January at 10:40 pm

    Removing Ms Abdel Fattah from the program at a sensitive time so close to the Bondi massacre seems a compassionate decision to me.

  • Avatar of Lynda Ben-Menashe

    Lynda Ben-Menashe13 January at 08:56 pm

    Couldn’t agree more. NCJWA questioned how feminist progressives could stand in complete and unqualified solidarity with someone who has expressed such abhorrent denialism about the sexual violence on October 7.

  • Avatar of Eli

    Eli13 January at 06:50 pm

    Unfortunately these festivals are long ceased to be genuine “forums for conversation and debate”. My experience is that there is a tremendous amount of group think by those who attend these forums, and there is very little diversity of opinion.

  • Avatar of Habeeb Maouf

    Habeeb Maouf13 January at 05:15 pm

    Sorry, but if Oderberg were genuinely committed to the fairness in debate and freedom of speech she espouses she would recognise that the debate is necessarily one-sided in favour of the Palestinians…. because that is how it ineluctably emerges when the truth is told. To put it in perspective, any debate between a Nazi and a humanist, conducted fairly and freely, instantly collapses in favour of the humanist.
    Oderberg centres process over substance, procedure over moral consideration. Her structural principle treats free speech as a formal, symmetrical right, equally applicable to all participants. She insists on fairness in debate and equal application of rules withuot accounting for the moral or power asymmetry inherent in the Palestinians’ settler-colonial struggle, otherwise refered to as the Israel/Palestine conflict.
    By doing this, she is being classically Zionist, even if she does not intend it: she engages in deflection and derails the debate onto tracks that are inconsequential to justice and freedom.
    Of course, she has every right to express these views. But let’s be clear about what she is saying, and the structural and moral consequences of her approach.

  • Avatar of Simon Tedeschi

    Simon Tedeschi13 January at 04:02 am

    Nothing brings people together like a shared commitment to free speech, immediately followed by a spreadsheet.