Overwhelming Volume of Disinformation Challenges Effective Rebuttal

In a strongly-worded letter to the Canberra Times, Jamie Hyams OAM of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) has pushed back against what he characterizes as “disinformation” in a recent column by Jack Waterford regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Hyams’ October 17 letter represents the latest exchange in Australia’s ongoing debate about the Middle East conflict, reflecting deep divisions in public opinion that mirror international discourse on the issue. The letter specifically targets Waterford’s October 11 column, which Hyams claims contained numerous factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations.

Central to Hyams’ argument is the distinction between Hamas and Palestinian civilians. He emphasizes that Israel’s military campaign targeted Hamas, which he notes is widely designated as a terrorist organization, rather than the broader Palestinian population. “Israel’s war was against Hamas, not civilians. Hamas are proscribed terrorists, not a ‘political group’,” writes Hyams, challenging what he perceives as Waterford’s characterization.

The AIJAC representative also defends Israel’s evacuation policies in Gaza, rejecting claims of ethnic cleansing. “Protecting civilians by evacuating them to safe areas is not ethnic cleansing,” Hyams states, suggesting that Israel would have faced criticism regardless of its approach to civilian protection.

In addressing the historical context of the conflict, Hyams points to Israel’s complete withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and what he describes as repeated Palestinian rejections of statehood offers. He characterizes Hamas as “genocidal fundamentalists” committed to Israel’s destruction, dismissing Waterford’s suggestion that the group was provoked into action.

Hyams also contests accusations of deliberate starvation in Gaza, attributing aid distribution problems to Hamas theft rather than Israeli policy. He further argues that Hamas prolonged the conflict by refusing to surrender and release hostages taken during its October 7, 2023 attack on Israel.

On the contentious issue of civilian casualties, Hyams claims that Israel’s military campaign achieved a better ratio of combatants to civilians killed than “any other recent urban warfare campaign,” despite what he describes as Hamas’ use of human shields. He defends Israel’s targeting of civilian infrastructure like hospitals and schools, asserting these had been repurposed for military use by Hamas, making them legitimate targets under international law.

The letter also rejects comparisons between pre-state Jewish militias and Hamas, and dismisses characterizations of Israel as an apartheid state. “All Israel civilians have equal rights,” Hyams insists.

In his conclusion, Hyams places responsibility for Palestinian suffering on Palestinian leadership, citing “terrorism and rejectionism” as the root causes rather than actions by Israel or Western nations.

The exchange highlights the deeply entrenched positions that characterize discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Australia. AIJAC, which Hyams represents, is one of Australia’s most prominent pro-Israel advocacy organizations, regularly engaging in public debate on Middle East issues.

The letter comes amid continuing international concern about the humanitarian situation in Gaza and Lebanon following more than a year of conflict that began with Hamas’ October 7 attack and Israel’s subsequent military response. It reflects the polarized nature of the debate, where fundamental interpretations of events, historical context, and responsibilities remain fiercely contested.