The West Has Forgotten How To Defend Itself

The West once understood that freedom cannot survive if a society becomes unwilling to defend the principles that make freedom possible.

Today, we appear determined to test that proposition to destruction.

For years, Western institutions have opened themselves to money and influence emanating from regimes whose values are profoundly different from their own. Australia is no exception. Australian universities have participated in projects funded by Qatar-linked institutions, including the Qatar Foundation and Qatar National Research Fund.

There is nothing inherently sinister about international research collaboration, and Qatari funding is not, by itself, evidence that an academic or university has been politically compromised.

But it raises questions Australians should be prepared to ask.

How much Qatari money has flowed into our universities? What relationships has it created? What disclosure requirements apply? And what safeguards ensure foreign funding does not become foreign influence?

There is a more uncomfortable question.

When university leaders permitted anti-Israel encampments to remain on campuses, where Jewish students and organisations reported antisemitism, intimidation and hostility, was foreign funding, or the desire to preserve relationships with wealthy Middle Eastern partners, ever a factor in their decision-making?

That is a question, not an accusation. Evidence would be required to establish such a connection. That is precisely why transparency matters.

Universities should disclose their funding, grants and partnerships with foreign states and state-linked entities and state unequivocally whether those relationships influenced decisions concerning encampments, disciplinary action or antisemitism.

Qatar deserves particular scrutiny. Doha has cultivated extensive relationships with Western institutions while maintaining a longstanding relationship with Hamas. That does not establish that Qatari funding dictated Australian universities’ behaviour. It establishes why the question is legitimate.

Modern conflicts are not fought only with armies. Israel’s enemies have repeatedly failed to destroy it militarily. Warfare has another front: narratives, institutions, culture and language.

History’s ugliest antisemitic movements understood the power of propaganda. The Nazis did not invent antisemitism. They exploited prejudices that had circulated for centuries and transformed them into instruments of political mobilisation and ultimately mass murder.

That history should make Western societies especially alert to the normalisation of hatred against Jews.

Instead, Australia has spent recent years discovering how far rhetoric can deteriorate before the state responds.

What does a law mean if nobody fears breaking it?

Following the antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi Beach, Parliament enacted tougher federal hate and extremism laws.

My concern was simple: tougher laws mean little if authorities lack the determination to enforce them.

We now have another test.

Abu Ahmad, a Melbourne Islamic preacher associated with the Al Bayyinah Islamic Centre, came under scrutiny over a July sermon containing material about hostility toward enemies of Islam, taking up arms and relations with Christians and Jews. Ahmad has disputed the characterisation of his sermon, saying he was teaching from a religious text and was not calling for violence against peaceful non-Muslims. That seems to be the excuse of every preacher whose sermons are exposed.

This is not an isolated case. There have been many others in Australia and overseas preaching similar messages to no consequence.

How did a liberal democracy reach the point where rhetoric about enmity, taking up arms and rejecting friendship with Christians and Jews be delivered in an Australian religious setting?

This is not an argument against Muslims. Muslim leaders who condemn incitement and defend peaceful coexistence are essential allies against extremism.

It is about enforcing one civic standard.

If a Christian preacher urges violence against Muslims, authorities should act. If a white supremacist urges violence against Jews, authorities should act. If an Islamist preacher urges violence against Christians or Jews, authorities should act. The inconsistency is mindblowing.

Bondi should have ended our complacency.

On December 14, 2025, two gunmen with alleged ISIS affiliation attacked a Jewish Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach, killing 15 victims.

It happened on the first day of Hanukkah.

After Bondi, nobody in Australian public life could plausibly claim ignorance about where extremist hatred can lead.

Yet less than two months later, former Australian of the Year Grace Tame stood at a Sydney protest and led the chant: “From Gadigal to Gaza, globalise the intifada.”

Tame has explained that she understands the phrase as resistance against the actions of the Israeli state. Many Jews hear something very different: the historical memory of an intifada in which buses, restaurants and other civilian spaces became scenes of terrorist violence. Over 1,000 Israelis were killed.

Words do not become harmless merely because the person chanting them assigns them a benign definition. Slogans acquire meaning from history as well as dictionaries.

Freedom requires defending.

The great achievement of Western civilisation is that people are free to criticise governments, religions and ideologies. Australians must remain free to criticise Israel or any country and advocate for Israelis or Palestinians. Muslims must be free to practise Islam, Christians Christianity and Jews Judaism.

But freedom is not a suicide pact.

Tolerance does not require tolerating incitement. Pluralism does not require surrendering the civic foundations that make pluralism possible.

The West’s values of openness, tolerance, freedom of expression and freedom of religion become vulnerabilities when leaders become frightened of defending their boundaries.

The deepest crisis facing the West is therefore one of confidence.

A country that believes in religious freedom should defend anyone from religious hatred. That includes antisemitism. A country that believes in free speech should defend fierce political disagreement while drawing an unmistakable line at incitement to violence. No ifs and buts. Universities committed to academic freedom should welcome international collaboration while providing radical transparency about foreign funding.

None of this requires abandoning liberalism.

It requires recovering it.

For too long, Western governments and institutions have confused tolerance with passivity and vigilance with prejudice. Perhaps, wokeism or critical race theory is clouding their judgement.

Bondi should have shattered that complacency.

Freedom did not descend naturally upon the West. Generations fought for it, legislated for it and sometimes died defending it.

Our generation inherited those freedoms.

Government’s responsibility is to have enough courage and confidence to defend them.