nuclear-news

The Platform of Shame: How Australia Normalised a Genocidal Regime

1 April 2026 Dr Andrew Klein, PhD AIM Extra. https://theaimn.net/the-platform-of-shame-how-australia-normalised-a-genocidal-regime/

An ambassador who calls dead journalists terrorists. A death penalty for Palestinians only. A government that says nothing. And a Press Club that provides the stage.

I. The Spectacle

On March 31, 2026, the National Press Club of Australia hosted Dr Hillel Newman, the newly appointed ambassador of Israel, for an address titled “Reshaping the Middle East.”

What unfolded was not diplomacy. It was propaganda. It was the marketing of genocide. And it was allowed to continue, uninterrupted, on Australian soil, under the lights of an institution that once stood for journalistic integrity.

Newman rejected a figure of 70,000 dead in Gaza – a number, he said, provided by Hamas. He claimed the ratio of civilian to combatant casualties was “the lowest in urban warfare” and that Israel should be “commended” for the “low number of uninvolved civilians that were actually killed.”

He was speaking over the bodies of 70,000 people. He was speaking over the findings of a United Nations commission of inquiry that, in September last year, found that Israel had committed genocide in the Gaza Strip – accusing the nation of having committed four genocidal acts, “namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Palestinians in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births.”

The Press Club did not challenge him. The journalists in the room did not walk out. The broadcast continued.

II. The Death Penalty Law

On March 30, the Israeli Knesset passed a law imposing the death penalty for terrorism-related offences. Human Rights Watch has analysed the bill and found it explicitly discriminatory.

The law makes death by hanging the default punishment for West Bank Palestinians convicted of nationalistic killings. It also gives Israeli courts the option of imposing the death penalty on Israeli citizens convicted on similar charges – language that legal experts say effectively confines those who can be sentenced to death to Palestinian citizens of Israel and excludes Jewish citizens.

Within the military court system of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the bill imposes the death penalty for killings classified as acts of terrorism as defined under Israeli law, even without a prosecutorial request. The bill only allows courts to order life imprisonment in unspecified exceptional cases where “special reasons” are found, limiting judicial discretion. It also prohibits commutation of sentences and mandates execution within an accelerated timeframe of 90 days.

Israeli citizens and residents are explicitly excluded from this provision: military jurisdiction applies exclusively to Palestinians, while Israeli settlers are tried in civilian courts.

Human Rights Watch has noted that military trials of Palestinians have “an approximately 96% conviction rate, based largely on ‘confessions’ extracted under duress and torture during interrogations.”

Adam Coogle, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, stated: “Israeli officials argue that imposing the death penalty is about security, but in reality, it entrenches discrimination and a two-tiered system of justice, both hallmarks of apartheid. The death penalty is irreversible and cruel. Combined with its severe restrictions on appeals and its 90-day execution timeline, this bill aims to kill Palestinian detainees faster and with less scrutiny.”

The Palestinian Authority has condemned the law as a “war crime” and a “flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention, which guarantees protection for individuals and fair trial rights.”

At the Press Club, Newman defended the law. “Just like in the United States, in Japan and in India, which have capital punishment, Israel has the right, as a sovereign state, to decide … capital punishment,” he said.

He did not mention the discrimination. He did not mention the 96% conviction rate. He did not mention the torture.

III. The Journalists

Newman was asked about the killing of journalists in Gaza and Lebanon. The International Federation of Journalists has reported that 261 journalists and media workers have been killed in Gaza since October 7, 2023. The Committee to Protect Journalists has accused Israel of killing a record 129 journalists in 2025.

Newman’s response was chilling.

He claimed that two of three journalists killed in an Israeli air strike in Lebanon were “100 per cent terrorist” members of Hezbollah’s elite Radwan force. He said they were “dressed up as journalists.” He claimed that both Hamas and Hezbollah “disguise themselves as press and remain terrorist operatives.”

When pressed on what percentage of killed journalists were not terrorists, he admitted: “The honest truth is that we have no way of knowing the exact amount of journalists who weren’t 100 per cent journalists who were killed.”

He has no way of knowing. Yet he called them terrorists anyway. On Australian soil. At the National Press Club.

The Committee to Protect Journalists has previously described such accusations as “smear campaigns” without “credible evidence to substantiate their claims.”

Newman also dismissed the broader death toll of journalists, saying: “When people outside quote 250, 300 journalists [have been killed], what they’re doing is they’re just buying [it] hook, line and sinker. If they would check, they would find that the majority of all the journalists, so-called journalists, that were affected were actually activists guised as journalists.”

He has no evidence. He provided none. The Press Club did not ask for it.

IV. The Frankcom Family

While Newman spoke inside the Press Club, the family of Zomi Frankcom stood outside.

Frankcom, an Australian aid worker, was killed by an Israeli drone strike on April 1, 2024, while working for World Central Kitchen in Gaza. Seven aid workers died. The convoy was struck three times.

Two years later, the family is still waiting for justice. They are still waiting for the release of critical drone footage audio that would establish motive. Former Defence Force chief Mark Binskin, who conducted an independent inquiry, was given access to unedited drone footage – but it did not include audio.

Newman was asked repeatedly whether the Israeli government would apologise to the Frankcom family. He refused. “Every incident of an innocent person or aid worker that is affected by a war situation is tragic, and we’ve expressed full sympathy with the family,” he said.

Sympathy. Not an apology.

He said reparations were “dependent on the final outcome of the interrogation.” Two years later, the interrogation is still not final.

Mal Frankcom, Zomi’s brother, said the family would like a formal apology, but he believed this was unlikely because it “could be seen as an admission of guilt.”

He met with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Tuesday. He urged the government to use all possible diplomatic levers to pressure Israel to complete its investigation.

The ambassador was asked about the audio. He said: “That’s not in my hands. It’s in the IDF’s hands.”

The IDF’s hands. Where it has been for two years.

V. The Australian Government’s Response

Foreign Minister Penny Wong told the Labor caucus that Australia opposes the death penalty “in all instances.” She pointed to a joint statement Australia signed alongside France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom that opposed the measure.

The statement said: “We are particularly worried about the de facto discriminatory character of the bill. The adoption of this bill would risk undermining Israel’s commitments with regards to democratic principles.”

A joint statement. Words. Not action.

The government has not summoned the ambassador. It has not imposed sanctions. It has not suspended military cooperation. It has not done anything that would cost Israel anything at all.

The same government that rushed to pass hate speech laws after the Bondi terror attack – laws that criminalise the phrase “from the river to the sea” – has nothing to say about a law that would execute Palestinian prisoners by hanging within 90 days, with no right of pardon, under a discriminatory legal regime.

The same government that welcomed Israeli President Isaac Herzog to Canberra has not condemned the man who wore a noose-shaped lapel pin while celebrating the passage of this law – Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s National Security Minister.

The same government that expelled Iran’s ambassador after ASIO concluded Tehran orchestrated the bombings of a synagogue and a kosher restaurant has not applied the same standard to Israel.

VI. The Question of Double Standards

In 2024, the Albanese government expelled Iran’s ambassador, Ahmad Sadeghi, after domestic spy agency ASIO concluded that Iran had orchestrated the bombings of a synagogue in Melbourne and a kosher restaurant in Sydney.

A top Iranian diplomat, Mohammad Pournajaf, defected from the regime and was granted asylum in Australia. The government acted. The ambassador was expelled.

Yet Israel’s ambassador calls dead journalists terrorists, defends a discriminatory death penalty law, refuses to apologise for the killing of an Australian aid worker – and the government says nothing.

Why was the Iranian ambassador expelled, but the Israeli ambassador remains?

The answer is the network. The donors. The lobbyists. The fear of being labelled antisemitic. The capture of our political class by a foreign ideology that demands silence in exchange for support.

VII. Has the Press Club Been Captured?

The National Press Club is meant to be a forum for robust journalism. For challenging those in power. For holding the powerful to account.

On March 31, 2026, it provided a platform for an ambassador who called dead journalists terrorists. Who defended a discriminatory death penalty law. Who refused to apologise for the killing of an Australian aid worker.

The journalists in the room did not walk out. They did not cut the microphone. They did not refuse to platform a man who accused the dead of being terrorists without evidence.

This does no credit to Australian journalism. It does no credit to the Press Club. It does no credit to Australia.

VIII. The Questions They Refuse to Ask

We will ask the questions they refuse to ask:

• Why was Hillel Newman given a platform to call dead journalists terrorists?
• Why did the National Press Club not challenge his claims in real time?
• Why has the Australian government not summoned the ambassador to answer for the death penalty law?
• Why has the government not condemned the law in the strongest possible terms?
• Why has the government not suspended military cooperation with Israel?
• Why has the government not imposed sanctions?
• Why has the government done nothing that would cost Israel anything at all?
• Why was the Iranian ambassador expelled, but the Israeli ambassador remains?

The Frankcom family deserves answers. The Palestinian prisoners facing execution deserve the world to speak. The Australian people deserve to know why their government is silent.

IX. The Larger Pattern

This is not an isolated incident. It is the same pattern we have been exposing for weeks.

The same network that brought us the Segal Plan – mandatory Zionist indoctrination in universities. The same network that brought us the police crackdown in New South Wales – eight armoured officers breaking down a woman’s door at 5am. The same network that is turning our public service into an arm of foreign influence. The same network that has captured our political class.

The same silence. The same complicity. The same refusal to act.

Israel is committing genocide. The International Court of Justice has found it “plausible.” The United Nations commission of inquiry has found it has committed genocidal acts. The world is watching.

And Australia says nothing. Or says a few words in a joint statement, then returns to business as usual.

X. What Must Be Done

1. The National Press Club must answer for its decision to platform Newman. Why was he not challenged? Why was the broadcast allowed to continue? Why were dead journalists slandered without evidence on Australian soil?
2. The Australian government must summon the ambassador. He must answer for the death penalty law. He must answer for his comments about journalists. He must answer for the Frankcom family.
3. The government must condemn the death penalty law in the strongest possible terms. A joint statement is not enough. Words are not enough. Australia must use every diplomatic lever to oppose this discriminatory, inhumane legislation.
4. The government must suspend military cooperation with Israel. Australia cannot claim to oppose the death penalty while cooperating militarily with a state that imposes it discriminatorily.
5. The government must impose sanctions. The time for words is over. The time for action is now.
6. The Frankcom family must receive justice. The audio must be released. The investigation must be completed. Those responsible must be held accountable.

XI. A Warning

What happened at the National Press Club on March 31, 2026, was not an aberration. It was the logical conclusion of a pattern.

A foreign ambassador called dead journalists terrorists. He defended a law that executes Palestinians by hanging within 90 days, with no right of pardon, under a discriminatory legal regime. He refused to apologise for the killing of an Australian aid worker.

And Australia was silent. The government was silent. The Press Club was silent. The media was silent.

This is what complicity looks like. Not active participation. Silence. The refusal to speak. The refusal to act. The refusal to hold accountable those who commit atrocities in our name, with our support, under the cover of our alliance.

The wire is not cut. The shells fall short. The men who send others to die do not walk the ground.

But we will not be silent. We will ask the questions they refuse to ask. We will name the names. We will expose the pattern.

And we will keep cutting the wire until there is nothing left but the garden.

This article is dedicated to my wife, who stands with me shoulder to shoulder, and I am so proud of her.

Sources:……………………………………………………………

April 4, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, civil liberties | Leave a comment

Australia’s New AUKUS Protest Police, and the Quiet Redefinition of Dissent

28 January 2026 AIMN Editorial, By Denis Hay  

AUKUS protest police: FOI documents reveal the AFP’s Orcus Command and how protest is being treated as a national security issue in Australia.

Introduction

Public discussion of AUKUS has focused on submarine delivery dates, strategic alignment, and cost blowouts. Far less attention has been given to how the Australian government is preparing for domestic opposition to the agreement.

Freedom of Information documents obtained by transparency advocate Rex Patrick and reported by Michael West Media reveal that the Australian Federal Police has quietly established a new unit, Orcus Command, dedicated to protecting AUKUS-related defence facilities. The documents show this unit is also planning for public order management, including protest and political dissent connected to Australia’s growing role in US and UK military operations.

This matters because protest is a cornerstone of democratic accountability. When dissent is framed primarily as a security risk, the balance between public order and civil liberties shifts in ways that deserve close public scrutiny.

What has received far less attention is how the government is preparing to manage Australians who oppose it.

Internal link: “Australia’s AUKUS agreement”.

Editor’s note:

This analysis is based on Freedom of Information documents obtained by transparency advocate Rex Patrick and reporting by Michael West Media. All claims in this article are drawn from released documents, budget papers, and publicly available statements. Care has been taken to distinguish between documented facts, lawful policing powers, and broader democratic implications.

What Is Orcus Command

Orcus Command is a specialised AFP unit created to provide protective security for the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine program, particularly at strategically significant defence bases such as HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.

FOI documents show that:

• The unit was created with minimal public disclosure.
• It has a mandate extending beyond physical asset protection.
• It is embedded within the Department of Defence, not a civilian oversight body.
• Its planning includes public order and protest activity.

This institutional placement is significant. By situating Orcus Command within Defence rather than a civilian agency, protest management around AUKUS is treated as a national security issue rather than a matter of routine democratic policing.

Internal link: “Defence influence in Australia”.

Protest and Dissent as a Security Issue

Internal AFP documents explicitly reference the monitoring and response to political opposition and protest activity linked to AUKUS and the expanding US military presence in Australia.

This reflects a broader shift in Australian governance. Over recent years, most states have introduced or strengthened laws restricting protest, increasing police powers, and imposing harsher penalties for disruption.

Rather than being framed as a democratic expression to be facilitated and protected, protest is increasingly framed as a risk to continuity and order.

The Orcus Command documents indicate:

• Planning for escalation scenarios
• Proactive monitoring of protest groups
• Coordination with state police
• Anticipation of increased protest intensity

Internal link: “right to protest in Australia” 

Why is Protest Being Framed as a National Security Issue Under AUKUS?

The documents state that Orcus Command has Commonwealth responsibility for protecting the nuclear submarine program under existing legislative powers.

This places protest activity in the same conceptual space as counterterrorism and critical infrastructure protection. While such powers are lawful, their application to political dissent raises difficult questions.

When a protest is absorbed into a national security framework:

• Thresholds for intervention are lowered.
• Decision-making becomes less transparent.
• Oversight mechanisms are weakened.
• Civil liberties are more easily subordinated to strategic objectives.

This does not mean that protest is automatically criminalised. It does mean that the lens through which protest is viewed has changed.

Internal link: “national security frameworks”.

One of the most sensitive revelations in the AFP briefing material is the inclusion of lethal force within Orcus Command’s armed protection planning.

Lethal force authorisations are standard in many armed federal policing and counter-terrorism contexts. Their inclusion alone is not unlawful or unusual. However, the context matters.

These provisions appear within documents that also discuss protest and public order management. This signals that scenarios involving political dissent are being contemplated within a framework that allows for the highest level of force available to federal police.

This does not suggest protesters will routinely face lethal force. It does show that dissent around AUKUS is being planned for within a security paradigm where extreme outcomes are legally contemplated.

That distinction is important, but it should not be dismissed.

Reassuring Allies, Managing Citizens

FOI emails reveal that Australian authorities are keen to show to the United States and the United Kingdom that protest activity will not disrupt or delay AUKUS operations.

This highlights a core tension: Australian policing resources are being used not only to keep domestic order, but also to reassure foreign military partners.

The documents emphasise:

• Proactive responses to identified protest risks.
• The importance of continuity for allied operations
• Minimising disruption to US and UK interests

Internal link: “Foreign policy dependence“.

Budget Allocations Signal Long-Term Expansion

Funding figures reinforce the seriousness of the operation.

• $73.8 million allocated to Orcus Command in late 2025.
• Funding rising to $125.2 million in 2026.

This near doubling suggests the government expects expanded responsibilities and sustained operations, rather than a short-term security task.

Budgets reflect priorities. In this case, substantial public funds are being committed to a policing unit designed to manage both infrastructure security and anticipated dissent.

Internal link: “public money priorities”.

Secrecy, FOI, and Democratic Oversight

AUKUS is one of the most secretive projects in Australia’s modern history. While some confidentiality around defence capabilities is legitimate, secrecy has expanded far beyond technical details.

The government has:

• Refused a comprehensive public inquiry.
• Limited parliamentary scrutiny
• Relied heavily on national security exemptions
• Restricted public access to key information

Without FOI requests and investigative journalism, the existence and scope of Orcus Command would remain unknown.

The Broader Democratic Context

The creation of Orcus Command does not occur in isolation. It sits alongside:

• Tightened protest laws across states
• Expanded police powers.
• Increasing surveillance of activists
• Reduced tolerance for disruption

Taken together, these trends suggest a gradual rebalancing of the state’s relationship with citizens, particularly where dissent intersects with powerful economic or strategic interests.

Why This Matters for Democracy……………………………………………………………………………………. https://theaimn.net/australias-new-aukus-protest-police-and-the-quiet-redefinition-of-dissent/

January 30, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, civil liberties | Leave a comment

Australia’s Lack Of Speech Protections Means We Should Be MORE Hostile To Speech Regulation

Caitlin Johnstone, Jan 25, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/australias-lack-of-speech-protections?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=185687870&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

A normal, healthy person would look at Australia’s lack of free speech protections and say “Hmm, Australian leaders should be extremely resistant to new laws and policies which restrict speech then, because it would be very easy for those restrictions to become abusive.”

Australian leaders look at our lack of free speech protections and say “See? This means we get to take away your right to protest genocide!”

Nowhere is this more clearly exemplified than the repeated statements from New South Wales premier Chris Minns saying it’s fine to silence Australians because we don’t have free speech rights.

Over and over again Minns has defended his promotion of authoritarian speech crackdowns in his state by claiming it’s okay to stomp out dissident speech of Australians because Australians don’t have the same speech protections as Americans, saying “we don’t have the same free speech rules that they have in the United States and I make no apologies for that” and similar statements in recent weeks.

To be clear, Minns is being repulsively tyrannical when he says this, but factually speaking he isn’t wrong.

As Joe Lauria wrote for Consortium News following the passage of Australia’s frightening new “hate speech” bill:

“Unlike the United States, Australia has no Bill of Rights in its Constitution protecting freedom of speech, assembly and other rights. Much as Israel would want it, a law such as this adopted in Australia would still be difficult to pass in the U.S. on paper, despite the Israel Lobby’s hold over the U.S. Congress.”

If Australians had the same speech protections that they have in the United States, we could appeal tyrannical new laws on First Amendment grounds. Because we have no such protections, it is much harder to oppose authoritarian speech restrictions once they are in place.

As I often remind readers, Australia is the only so-called democracy in the world which has no national charter or bill of rights of any kind. A tremendous amount of faith has been placed in state and federal legislators to simply do the right thing, which has proved foolish and ineffective. Professor George Williams wrote for the Melbourne University Law Review in 2006:

“Australia is now the only democratic nation in the world without a national bill of rights. Some comprehensive form of legal protection for basic rights is otherwise seen as an essential check and balance in democratic governance around the world. Indeed, I can find no example of a democratic nation that has gained a new Constitution or legal system in recent decades that has not included some form of a bill of rights, nor am I aware of any such nation that has done away with a bill of rights once it has been put in place.”

It has been clearly and conclusively established that this system does not work. State and federal governments are working frenetically to shred the right of Australians to oppose the actions of the state of Israel, with their assault on our civil rights disguised as an effort to fight “antisemitism” in our country and help Jewish Australians feel more safe. The fact that this happens to advance the information interests of the western power alliance, we are told, is purely coincidental.

The evidence is in and the case is closed. The Australian system does not work. We need a national bill of rights, and we need free speech to be enshrined in our constitution.

In the meantime, we need to be aggressively opposed to laws and policies which assault our freedom of speech. We need to be more aggressive in our opposition than Americans would be, because we have fewer safeguards against tyrannical abuses.

It’s so disgusting how these freaks are telling us right to our faces “Yeah well you guys don’t have any rights, so I’m going to silence you and oppress you and I make no apologies about that.”

That kind of arrogant, abusive authoritarianism deserves nothing but ferocious defiance.

January 27, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, civil liberties | Leave a comment

Gun vs Keffiyeh. One kills, the other gets you death threats.

by Member of Jews Against the Occupation | Dec 18, 2025 , https://michaelwest.com.au/gun-vs-keffiyeh-one-kills-the-other-gets-you-death-threats/

A Jewish woman wearing a Keffiyeh as well as the Star of David was escorted off Bondi Beach by police. The resulting social media storm led to death threats to her and to her friend.

I am writing this knowing it will likely result in more death threats.

That is not a metaphor. It is a statement of fact, based on what happened to my friend Michelle and me this week, and what happened next when we sought protection from the state.

On Monday, at the Bondi memorial for the victims of the mass killing the day before, Michelle – a Jewish local and member of Jews against the Occupation ‘48 – was surrounded by a hostile crowd shouting “get her off”. She was escorted off the beach to the sound of applause by approximately forty police officers, whilst trying to explain her position to the surrounding reporters, and taken to Bondi Police Station, where she was told she couldn’t go back to Bondi Beach for 6 hours.

Her “offence”? Wearing a Keffiyeh.

Whether one agrees with her politics or not is beside the point. The memorial was dominated by Israeli flags – the flag of a state currently accused of genocide and whose leaders are wanted for war crimes. Michelle wore the keffiyeh because she objected to a moment of mourning being politicised. But it is not a crime. Nor is it a provocation warranting mob intimidation.

What followed should concern anyone who believes the rule of law applies equally.

After video footage of Michelle circulated on X, under a post by journalist Hugh Riminton, the abuse escalated rapidly.

Facts ignored

What was not mentioned – despite Michelle wearing a visible Star of David and explicitly stating to the press that she is Jewish – was that she is a Jewish local who grew up in Bondi. That omission mattered.

I replied publicly on X to clarify that Michelle is Jewish, that she is my friend, and that she is part of JAO48. While those responses received hundreds of supportive comments, they also unleashed some of the most extreme antisemitic, misogynistic, ageist and Islamophobic abuse I have encountered in years of public advocacy.

I can deal with online abuse on social media. The block button is my friend.

Threats arrived in my email inbox – not via social media, but via my direct contact form and messaging linked to my business. One message stated that Michelle was “now wishing she had stayed home” and warned, “I would not want to be her”.

The individual who contacted me used the name “Brenton Tarrant”, the name of the Christchurch mass murderer, writing that I “deserve a bullet in the head”, and that Michelle would be “hunted down”, and that because her address was doxxed, it would make “putting a claw hammer in her skull even easier.”

This was enough intimidation for me to call 000 and for two members of the Chatswood station to attend my home. The expressions on their faces when they read the messages were of shock and disgust.

No police report

More concerning was that Michelle’s home address had been published online in response to Riminton’s post. On Monday night, she went to Maroubra Police Station to report she’d been doxxed.

And nothing happened. She wasn’t contacted the next day or given a case number. Nothing.

When we returned to Maroubra Police Station two days later to ask what action had been taken regarding the doxxing and threats, the attending constable.

‘could not even find a record of Michelle having gone there on Monday night.’

There was a record of the death threats I received from Chatswood Police Station, but that doesn’t help someone whose life is in danger in Maroubra.

A Jewish woman, escorted by dozens of police officers, detained at a police station under threat of violence, had no record in the system days later. Had something happened to her in the intervening period, there would have been no official trace of her presence or vulnerability.

This is not a paperwork error. This is a systemic failure.

Irony of doxxing laws

The irony is sharp enough to cut. NSW’s doxxing laws were introduced following sustained lobbying about online threats directed at Zionist Jews. Those laws were framed as urgent protections against harm.

Yet here we have a Jewish woman who is anti-Zionist, whose address was published, who received death threats, and whose case appears to have been ignored entirely.

Only after I explicitly raised the double standard to a young constable – only after pointing out how differently this would have been handled had Michelle been a Zionist Jew – was a report finally entered into the system. I also demanded that police investigate the instigator of the doxxing. Whether the individual can ultimately be identified is beside the point. The absence of effort is the issue.
This failure is made even more disturbing by the broader amplification of risk.

Identity matters

The omission of Michelle’s Jewish identity among all the abuse matters. Not because her Judaism should confer protection or legitimacy – it should not have to – but because it fuelled a narrative that made her a target. The implication was clear:

‘she was an outsider, an agitator, someone deserving of removal.‘

It should not matter who she is. It should not matter what she believes. Wearing a keffiyeh is no more illegal than waving the flag of a state accused of mass atrocities.

What should matter is this: no one attending a memorial should be threatened with death, have their home address exposed, or be left unprotected by the police.

If that standard only applies to some Jews, then it is not protection at all. It is political preference enforced by the state.

And if writing this results in more threats, then that fact alone tells you how broken our public discourse – and our institutions – have become.

Tragedy should have united the country

Fifteen people are dead. Around forty are injured. Families and communities are grieving. But within hours, the event was weaponised.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blamed the Albanese government. Jillian Segal linked the massacre with the March for Humanity on the Harbour Bridge.

Josh Frydenberg re-emerged, positioning himself as a future Prime Minister on the back of mass death, although suggesting this is the case is “highly offensive” to him.
I guess to Josh, it’s irrelevant that the father in the father/son terrorist team arrived in ’98 when Howard was PM, he gained his gun license in 2015 when Abbott was PM, and the ASIO investigation into the son was dropped in 2019 when Morrison was PM.

And now, as a result of this horrific terrorist attack on Sunday, the calls to ban pro-Palestine protests are louder than ever.

If anybody can possibly think that Palestinians, Muslims, indeed even humanitarians who object to genocide had anything to gain from a mass shooting, “they’ve got rocks in their head”, as we say in Australia. If anything, the events of this week

‘show precisely why dissent must be protected.‘

When anti-Zionist Jews can be threatened with death, doxxed, misrepresented as terrorists, and left without protection by the state, the danger is not protest – it is repression.

If writing this results in further threats, that fact alone will confirm the point.

It is not safety for all that is being prioritised in this country. It’s not even safety for all Jews that is being prioritised. What dark days we are living in.

December 26, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, civil liberties | Leave a comment

Notes On Bondi Beach And Free Speech

Caitlin Johnstone, Dec 22, 2025, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/notes-on-bondi-beach-and-free-speech?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=182280999&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The dumbest thing we are being asked to believe today is that pro-Palestinian protests caused the Bondi shooting. It’s self-evidently moronic. No one sincerely believes it. They’re just pretending to believe it to get protests banned and criticism of Israel outlawed.

Nobody actually believes pro-Palestine protests caused the Bondi shooting. They’re just pretending to believe that to promote the interests of a genocidal apartheid state.

Nobody actually believes “globalize the intifada” means “kill all Jews”. They’re just pretending to believe that to promote the interests of a genocidal apartheid state.

Nobody actually believes pro-Palestine demonstrations are “hate marches” or that pro-Palestine speech is “hate speech”. They’re just pretending to believe that to promote the interests of a genocidal apartheid state.

Nobody actually believes there’s a soaring epidemic of antisemitism in our society that is caused by anti-genocide demonstrations. They’re just pretending to believe that to promote the interests of a genocidal apartheid state.

Nobody actually believes opposing the state of Israel is the same as hating Jews. They’re just pretending to believe that to promote the interests of a genocidal apartheid state.

Israel supporters are liars and manipulators. They support genocide and apartheid. Of course they will lie about what they believe, and pretend to think things that they don’t actually think. They’re defending a mass atrocity that can only be defended using lies. They’re bad people. Bad people do bad things

It’s crazy how the Bondi shooters got radicalized by the anti-genocide protests from 2023 to 2025 and then invented a time machine and went back to 2019 to join ISIS.

That’s the claim that’s being made when people say the mass shooting in Sydney was caused by pro-Palestine protests, you know. In 2019 Naveed Akram was on an Australian intelligence watch list because of his ties to an Islamic State terror cell, so the claim that the Gaza protests caused or incited the shooting necessarily requires an element of time travel. Call their story “The Terrorists and the Time Machine”.

We’re being asked to believe that ISIS were a bunch of cuddly wuddly snuggle bears until Australians started protesting an active genocide.

December 24, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, civil liberties | Leave a comment