The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Australian headed “Palestinians are complicit in the horror of Hamas” 17 January 2025 in print; “World waits to hear fate of little Kfir, Israel’s youngest hostage” 16 January 2025 online; and “Kfir Bibas was just 262 days old when the gorillas of Gaza called. If he has been kept alive by these black-hearted Arabs, then God help him. If he has been murdered by Gazans, then God help them”, Social media 16 January 2025.
The article, an opinion piece, commented on the fate of Israel’s youngest hostage Kfir Bibas and more broadly, the extent of Gaza’s civilian population’s support for Hamas. The article said “Kfir was just 262 days old when the gorillas of Gaza called. If they have not killed him, he has spent 451 days in captivity. Literally. Some released hostages said they saw his dad in a cage underneath the Gaza city of Khan Yunis, just a few kilometres from Kfir’s home”.
It said that “The fate of Kfir may well decide the fate of all Gazans. The world is watching what happens to the youngest hostage. If he has been kept alive by these black-hearted Arabs, then God help him. If he has been murdered by Gazans, then God help them.” The article said that Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh, the leaders of the terrorist organisation Hamas responsible for the 7 October 2024 atrocities, “could easily have secured the baby’s safety. They chose not to. They planned and rehearsed, over several years, those October 7 raids in which 1200 innocents were hacked to death, blown up, shot and burned alive, while 240 were kidnapped; not all for being Jewish, but for working and living in mostly Jewish lands.”
The article also referred to the murder of Shani Louk, saying “The world was revolted by the scenes of celebrating young Arabs parading her body through city streets on the back of a truck shouting ‘Alluha Akbar’(God is great)”. It went on to say that “there is so much more that condemns Gazans, not just its Hamas-trained terrorists.”
In response to complaints received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, which require publications to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6). The Council noted that the complaints raised concerns that the term “gorillas of Gaza” perpetuates a harmful stereotype that has historically been used to portray entire groups of people as savage or subhuman. The complaints also expressed concern the terms “gorillas of Gaza” and “black-hearted Arabs” suggests that all Arabs and all Gazans are collectively responsible for the actions of Hamas.
In response, the publication said the language used in the article reflects the anger, grief and horror felt by many at the grotesque nature of the October 7 attacks and the ongoing plight of those still held hostage. The comments were made in the broader context of public interest debate, firstly, about the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas and secondly, around the civilian population of Gaza, their relationship to Hamas which follows their decision to elect the terrorist organisation to govern them, and the question of collective responsibility in times of war.
The publication said that the language used in the article is clearly referring to the Hamas perpetrators of these atrocities, not to all Palestinians or Arabs. The text does not refer to all people in Gaza as ‘gorillas’ or all Arabs as ‘black-hearted.’
The publication said that to suggest otherwise was never the intention of the opinion article’s author nor would it accurately describe the points he made in his arguments. These are plainly rhetorical flourishes aimed at a terrorist group and the people who enabled or supported their actions.
The phrase ‘gorillas of Gaza’ is a pointed play on words, referring to Hamas as guerrilla fighters who carried out the October 7 atrocities. Any reasonable reader would understand that this is a critique of the perpetrators of specific crimes and not a blanket characterisation of an ethnic group or entire population. The reference to ‘black-hearted Arabs’ is similarly directed at those responsible for or complicit in the abduction and possible murder of a child. The term ‘black-hearted’ is a widely accepted idiom denoting cruelty or evil intent.
The publication said the comments are a form of robust opinion, entirely within the realm of legitimate political expression, and are protected in any open democracy with a free press.
Conclusion
The Council recognises that the article is clearly identified as opinion and given the significant public interest of allowing freedom of expression, the Council takes the view that such articles are entitled to use robust language and to express views to which some or even many may disagree. Nonetheless, the obligation remains to take reasonable steps to comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice.
The Council notes the publication’s comments that the terms complained about were directed at Hamas and were made in the context of a discussion concerning the civilian population of Gaza and their relationship with the terrorist group and the nature of collective responsibility. Nonetheless, the Council notes that the print headline, “Palestinians are complicit in the horror of Hamas” and comments in the article, such as “there is so much more that condemns Gazans, not just its Hamas-trained terrorists in conjunction with the repeated and prominent references throughout the article to “Gazans”, go beyond debating the extent to which the civilian population of Gaza was or is supportive of Hamas, and imply that they are collectively responsible for the October 7 atrocities and the fate of the hostages. In this context, the Council considers that a reasonable reader would consider the terms “gorillas of Gaza” and “black hearted Arabs” are not solely directed at Hamas, but to all Gazans.
The Council considers that in a period of heightened community sensitivity around the Israel/Palestine conflict, great care must be taken to avoid comments that characterise an entire population or ethnic group in terms that are potentially offensive or prejudicial, and which are not justified in the public interest. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress, or prejudice in breach of General Principle 6.
Relevant Council Standards
This Adjudication applies the following General Principle of the Council:
Publications must take reasonable steps to:
- Avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.