1) 여기서 말하는 “pro-Israel activists”는 누구인가
당신이 붙인 글(Deepcut 기사+GetUp 서명 페이지)을 기준으로 보면, <특정 단체/개인이 실명으로 일괄 지목되지는 않습니다>. Deepcut은 “pro-Israel WhatsApp group”에서 공유된 링크를 통해 <ABC 이사회·경영진에게 자동 작성(템플릿) 민원을 보내게 하는 캠페인>이 돌아가고 있다고 설명합니다.
다만, 같은 시기 논란의 “출발점”이 된 <애들레이드 Writers’ Week에서 Randa Abdel-Fattah를 배제하라고 요청한 쪽>에 대해서는 ABC 보도에 구체적 단서가 있습니다. ABC는 <South Australia의 Jewish Community Council> 쪽 인사(정부 liaison)가 페스티벌 보드에 “제거 요청” 서한을 보냈다고 전합니다.
또 Deepcut의 다른 기사(WOMADelaide 관련)에서는, 비슷한 방식의 이메일/왓츠앱 동원이 <“AUSSIE CHRISTIANS UNITED WITH ISRAEL”라는 페이스북 그룹 게시물>과 연결돼 있었다고 적시합니다(즉, <기독교 시온주의 성향의 온라인 커뮤니티>가 일부 동원 통로로 등장).
정리하면, 이 기사 맥락에서의 “pro-Israel activists”는 대략 이렇게 나뉩니다.
-
<공식/준공식 커뮤니티 대표 조직 및 로비 채널> (예: 주(州) 단위 유관 단체가 행사 보드에 서한 발송)
-
<온라인 동원형 네트워크> (WhatsApp/Activism Mailer 같은 도구로 템플릿 민원·항의 메일을 “홍수”처럼 보내는 방식)
-
<친이스라엘 성향의 종교/시민 커뮤니티 일부> (Deepcut이 특정 FB그룹명을 제시)
2) 호주에서 이들은 얼마나 “강한가”
“강하다”를 무엇으로 보느냐에 따라 답이 달라집니다.
-
<제도권 접근력(정부·정당·공공기관과의 라인)>은 꽤 강한 편으로 평가됩니다. ECAJ는 스스로를 “호주 유대 커뮤니티의 피크 바디(peak body)”로 규정하고 정부를 상대로 대표·옹호한다고 밝힙니다.
-
<미디어/방송사에 대한 ‘불편 제기’ 역량>도 존재합니다. 예컨대 AIJAC 같은 단체는 ABC 보도에 대해 공식 불만 제기를 해왔다고 스스로 언급합니다.
-
다만 이 영향력은 <일방향>이 아닙니다. 호주 내에서도 유대 커뮤니티를 하나의 목소리로만 볼 수 없고(예: Jewish Council of Australia 같은 다른 입장·프레임도 존재), “반(反)혐오” 정책을 둘러싸고도 시민자유 단체·학계·다른 유대 단체가 우려를 제기하는 구도가 함께 나타납니다.
-
그리고 이번 사건처럼, 압박이 성공하더라도 <역풍>이 큰 경우가 있습니다. Writers’ Week 배제 결정이 대규모 보이콧·사퇴·프로그램 취소로 이어졌다는 점 자체가 “정치적 승리 = 문화적/평판적 손실”이 될 수 있음을 보여줍니다.
3) 기사(Deepcut)에 대한 코멘트
Deepcut 기사의 핵심은 “<조직된 템플릿 민원 캠페인>이 ABC 기자 개인을 겨냥해 ‘편향/윤리 위반’ 프레임으로 압박하고, ABC가 그 압박을 방어하지 않으면 ‘위축 효과(chilling effect)’가 커진다”는 주장입니다.
제가 보기엔 포인트가 3개입니다.
-
<민원 자체는 시민의 권리>입니다. 다만 “같은 문구를 복붙한 민원 폭주”가 내부적으로 ‘정상적 편집 감시’라기보다 ‘징계 유도/위협’처럼 기능할 수 있다는 문제 제기는 성립합니다(특히 회사가 겁먹고 개인에게 책임을 전가하면 더 그렇습니다).
-
<ABC의 난점>도 현실입니다. ABC는 공영방송이라 “기자 개인의 공적 행동이 편향으로 보이느냐”를 매우 신경 쓸 수밖에 없고, 상대 진영은 그 지점을 파고듭니다. 그래서 해법은 “침묵”이 아니라, <규정·원칙을 공개적으로 설명하고, 괴롭힘/좌표찍기성 공격으로부터 직원 보호 의무(duty of care)를 분명히 하는 것>에 가깝습니다(노조가 요구하는 지점도 대체로 이 축입니다).
-
Deepcut은 “누가(어느 단체가) 주도했는가”를 <실명·조직명으로 충분히 입증하지는 못합니다>. WhatsApp 캡처와 자동 메일 구조를 근거로 “조직적”이라고 말하지만, 독자가 신뢰하려면 (가능하다면) 캠페인 운영 주체/도구 제공자/자금 흐름/연결망을 더 구체적으로 밝혀야 합니다. 이 한계 때문에, 당신의 질문(“누구냐?”)에 제가 확답을 못 하고 “현재 공개된 근거로는 특정이 어렵다”고 말할 수밖에 없습니다.
<English>
1) Who are the “pro-Israel activists” in this context?
Based on the materials you pasted (Deepcut + GetUp), <Deepcut does not publicly name a specific organisation or individual> running the complaints campaign against ABC journalists. It describes a pro-Israel WhatsApp group circulating a link that generates a pre-written complaint email to ABC leadership.
For the earlier festival decision that triggered the withdrawals, ABC reporting provides a clearer on-record data point: a representative from the <Jewish Community Council of South Australia> said the council sent a letter asking the festival board to remove Randa Abdel-Fattah.
Deepcut’s separate WOMADelaide piece also ties similar “email/WhatsApp mobilisation” to a specific Facebook group (“AUSSIE CHRISTIANS UNITED WITH ISRAEL”), suggesting at least part of the ecosystem includes <Christian Zionist online networks>.
So “pro-Israel activists” here likely means a mix of:
-
<formal community/advocacy channels> (letters to boards; political engagement)
-
<online mobilisation networks> using template-email tools to flood inboxes
-
<some faith-based pro-Israel communities> active on social platforms
2) How powerful are they in Australia?
It depends on the yardstick:
-
<Institutional access> can be significant. ECAJ describes itself as the national peak body representing and advocating for the Jewish community to government.
-
<Media pressure capacity> exists. AIJAC, for example, openly discusses lodging complaints about ABC coverage (whatever one thinks of the merits).
-
But influence is <not monolithic and not uncontested>. The IHRA/antisemitism policy debate shows visible pushback from civil-liberties voices and other Jewish organisations, warning about overreach and conflation with political speech.
-
Also, “wins” can trigger <major backlash>. The Adelaide Writers’ Week removal decision contributed to mass withdrawals, resignations, and cancellation—an illustration that coercive pressure can carry reputational and economic costs.
3) Comment on the Deepcut article
Deepcut’s strongest contribution is drawing attention to <template-driven, coordinated complaints> as a pressure tactic, and to the risk of a chilling effect if management responds by disciplining individuals rather than protecting staff and clarifying standards.
Where the piece is weaker: on the central question you asked—“who exactly?”—it provides <limited public attribution>. It shows screenshots and the mechanics of the campaign, but does not conclusively identify the organisers behind the WhatsApp/email infrastructure. That means readers should treat claims about “who is orchestrating it” as provisional unless further evidence emerges.
Based on the snippet you provided and recent events surrounding the Adelaide Writers' Week 2026, here is an analysis of the situation, the groups involved, and a commentary on the implications.
<The Context: Adelaide Writers' Week 2026 Cancellation>
The article refers to the <cancellation of Adelaide Writers' Week 2026>, a major literary event in Australia. The sequence of events was triggered when the festival board disinvited Palestinian-Australian author and academic <Randa Abdel-Fattah> (author of Discipline), citing "cultural sensitivity" following a mass shooting at Bondi Beach in December 2025.
This decision led to a mass boycott by over 180 writers (including high-profile figures like Zadie Smith, Jacinda Ardern, and Percival Everett), the resignation of Festival Director Louise Adler, and ultimately the scrapping of the entire event.
<Who are the "pro-Israel activists"?>
In the context of Australian media and politics, and specifically regarding the targeting of ABC journalists like John Lyons and Laura Tingle, the "pro-Israel activists" usually refer to a network of well-organised advocacy bodies. Based on John Lyons' own investigative work (such as his book Dateline Jerusalem) and reports on this specific incident, these likely include:
<The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC):> Often cited as the most influential lobby group, known for its direct access to politicians and media executives. They are frequently associated with "complaints campaigns" designed to pressure editors and managers.
<The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ):> The peak representative body, which often handles formal complaints regarding antisemitism and media representation.
<The Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA):> Focuses on advocacy for Israel and often mobilizes grassroots responses.
<The Jewish Community Council of South Australia:> Specifically mentioned in reports as having lobbied the Adelaide Festival board and the South Australian Premier to exclude Abdel-Fattah.
<How powerful are they in Australia?>
Their influence is widely considered to be <substantial and sophisticated>, particularly in the political and media spheres.
<Political Access:> The fact that South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas publicly opposed Abdel-Fattah's inclusion—and that his views aligned with the lobbying efforts—demonstrates their ability to engage the highest levels of state government.
<Media Leverage:> John Lyons has previously documented how these groups utilize coordinated letter-writing campaigns and high-level meetings with ABC management to scrutinize and pressure journalists. The targeting of Lyons (who is critical of the lobby's influence) and Tingle (a robust political journalist) suggests a strategy of "working the refs"—making the cost of critical reporting administratively and reputationally high for the broadcaster.
<Institutional Impact:> The ability to pressure a major arts festival board into disinviting a speaker—even at the cost of the festival's existence—shows significant leverage over cultural institutions, which are often risk-averse and reliant on government or donor funding.
<Commentary on the Article and Situation>
The "GetUp!" email highlights a critical inflection point in Australian public discourse.
<The Weaponization of "Safety":> The festival board justified the removal of a writer not because of what she did, but due to "cultural sensitivity" and the "national mood." This sets a precarious precedent where "safety" is redefined to mean "freedom from discomfort" or "freedom from opposing political views." By treating a Palestinian writer's mere presence as a source of trauma, the institution effectively erased her professional standing based on her identity and political advocacy.
<The "Streisand Effect" and Backlash:> The activists' power, while effective in the short term (removing the writer), arguably backfired strategically. Instead of silencing Abdel-Fattah, the move caused the <cancellation of the entire festival>, turning a local programming dispute into a global news story about censorship. The solidarity shown by 180+ international authors suggests that the global literary community is becoming increasingly resistant to this form of deplatforming.
<The Threat to Public Broadcasting:> The targeted campaign against ABC journalists John Lyons and Laura Tingle is perhaps the more dangerous element. If "fairness and independence" (as the ABC charter requires) are successfully framed by lobbyists as "bias," the public's access to fearless reporting is diminished. Lyons and Tingle are veteran journalists; if they can be intimidated or exhausted by "lawfare" (constant administrative complaints), it sends a chilling message to younger, less secure reporters.
In summary, while the pro-Israel lobby in Australia retains immense structural power—enough to topple a festival—this incident reveals the limits of that power when it collides with the collective solidarity of the creative and journalistic workforce.
Would you like me to find more details on John Lyons' previous reporting regarding these lobby groups?
No comments:
Post a Comment