Western Australia submarine’s base the only reason for AUKUS
Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines is not in fact the most important part of the AUKUS deal – they are a distraction … AUKUS’s main game is the base that Australia intends to give to the US at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia
Albert Palazzo , adjunct professor at UNSW Canberra., February 28, 2026, https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/comment/topic/2026/02/28/wa-subs-base-the-only-reason-aukus?utm_campaign=SharedArticle&utm_source=share&utm_medium=link&utm_term=VFZ0rLaV&token=2PZRyQNr
It is tempting to label the AUKUS project an exercise in self-delusion and self-denial. The number of commentators who believe the project’s core promise will actually be honoured – the transfer of Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines from the United States to Australia – is astonishingly small and mainly limited to politicians and their hangers-on.
Even in the US, the likelihood of the transfer taking place is openly discounted, including by the chief of naval operations, Admiral Daryl Caudle. As if preparing for a let-down, a new report from the Congressional Research Service advances alternatives to the transfer of the promised submarines that will still allow the US to meet its strategic priorities.
In addition, it is hard to square the submarine promise with the reality that is Washington these days. US President Donald Trump’s willingness to pressure America’s allies and turn the US into a rogue superpower is well documented – just ask the Canadians and Danes. We have witnessed in real time his destruction of the global rules-based order as the US withdraws from dozens of international organisations and agreements.
That the US warship-building industry is in poor shape is also no secret. The odds of the nation being able to increase its submarine build rate to the required level for the transfer to go ahead without a loss of US operational capability is virtually nil, according to a December 2025 report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
One must accept that Australia’s politicians are reasonably intelligent, yet with the myriad well-known problems facing the nuclear-powered submarine transfer it is hard to understand how they can still insist that the project is “full steam ahead”. Nor is this insistence without cost to the taxpayer, as evidenced in the recent promise to spend $30 billion on South Australia’s Osborne shipyard to make it AUKUS ready. How can our politicians sustain their faith in AUKUS and not be rightly labelled as delusional?
The answer to this contradiction lies in recognising what AUKUS is really about – what the parties actually expect to gain from the agreement. Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines is not in fact the most important part of the AUKUS deal – they are a distraction. There are too many challenges to Australia’s acquisition, operation and maintenance of these boats for any rational person to believe they will arrive as promised. Hence AUKUS’s main game is the base that Australia intends to give to the US at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.
This base may be on Australian soil but its primary beneficiary will be the US, just as it is the US that disproportionately gains from the seemingly “joint” military facilities at Pine Gap and North West Cape.
The forthcoming nuclear submarine base is part of a wider American preparation for a possible war between the US and China. From the base, American submarines will be able to operate against China’s southern flank and sever its lines of communication across the Indian Ocean. In addition, the base allows the US to complicate China’s security arrangements by allowing American forces to operate on multiple lines of attack – westwards across the Pacific Ocean and northwards from Australia.
For the US, the defence of Australia is a distant secondary goal for this base. Our politicians are not therefore being delusional; they are being actively deceptive to their voters, since they must know what it is that the US really wants.
Australia is making enormous improvements to Fleet Base West (Stirling). The base is being upgraded so it can sustain and maintain a fleet of foreign nuclear-powered submarines, principally the US Navy’s Virginia-class attack boats, Ohio-class nuclear-armed missile submarines and the occasional British submarine.
The Stirling upgrade is similar in intent to what is happening at RAAF Base Tindal in the Northern Territory, which is being improved to accept US heavy bombers, presumably including nuclear-armed ones.
As a second order effect, the US presence at Stirling will see a significant influx of American sailors, maintenance personnel and administrative staff to the area. So determined is our government to meet its AUKUS responsibilities and make the US submarine base a reality that it plans to build new homes for the 1200 mainly American military personnel and their families who will be calling Australia home.
In the midst of a national housing crisis, and in a region where home prices increased by 15 per cent in a single year, a similar urgent housing build for Australian citizens is apparently not on the cards.
If one examines AUKUS from the perspective of Australia’s longstanding security practice, what appears to be merely senseless starts to reveal a disturbing logic.
Since the end of World War II, Australian governments have gone to great lengths and expense to keep the US interested in our part of the world. Australia needs to get US attention because the south-west Pacific has never been – and still isn’t – an important part of the world in the eyes of our great power leader.
In order to keep our protector onside and interested in our fate, Australia has had to demonstrate repeated and enthusiastic support for American policy. The need to maintain relevance explains why Robert Menzies encouraged the US to fight in Vietnam, why Australia then invited itself to the war, and why this country went to such great lengths to be included in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as well as other military missions. Of course, getting into such conflicts was easy. Getting out again can be a lot harder. Any early withdrawal risks offending the US, so Australians have fought to the end.
Generating relevance also explains the readiness with which successive governments have accepted the establishment of US military bases on Australian soil. The most important of these are the spy and signals establishment at Pine Gap and the Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt.
Just how vital these facilities are to America should not be minimised – they are critical for the conduct of US military and CIA operations, as well as the interception of communications by individuals ranging from actual terrorists to ordinary people, including Australians. The submarine base at Stirling will join Pine Gap and Naval Station Holt as a third facility of great operational importance.
AUKUS has a grim rationale when it is seen as the latest initiative in Australia’s longstanding tradition of seeking American attention. What is different in this case is that Australia’s leaders have increased the nation’s exposure to risk in any future war to a potentially existential level.
In the past, our participation in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan did not create any threat to Australia itself. Only those who served were placed in harm’s way. That is no longer the case.
China is a great power and, unlike Vietnam 60 years ago, has power projection capabilities that can hold Australian territory and population centres at real risk. The Australian government has placed a bullseye on Australia’s back and it isn’t clear if our leaders understand this.
Since the US bases are of great military importance, China would likely seek to destroy them in order to protect its own interests. Worse, China could safely employ nuclear weapons against Australia because the US would be unlikely to retaliate against such distant damage and risk the incineration of one of its own cities.
Without any commensurate benefit, the Australian government has embraced AUKUS and accepted the tremendous costs and risks it entails. It has done so with an appalling lack of honesty towards the Australian public, using the submarine promise like a set of shiny keys in front of a baby.
Our leaders must know that the US will not have submarines to spare when the time comes for the transfer. Instead, they employ deception to distract from the real game – a US submarine base and the unstated commitment of Australia to the American side in a war between great powers.
Of course, this need not be the outcome. Despite tradition and reluctance by our political leaders to embrace new ideas, policy can change. An independent defence policy that puts Australian sovereignty first is within reach, and the military technologies to enact it already exist.
The impediment is the Australian government’s inability to accept the reality of the present security situation. Instead, it opts for nostalgia. Australia needs a government that is willing to embrace the necessary changes in perspective and culture that will allow it to consider other security options.
Perhaps one day our politicians can rise to conceiving and implementing a different security policy, rather than falling back on the traditional default response of jumping up and down to get the attention of Washington. One can only hope.
Nuclear Weapons in Australia – Time to End the Secrecy
March 1, 2026, Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR) , https://warpowersreform.org.au/nuclear-weapons-in-australia-time-to-end-the-secrecy/
Under secretly-concluded arrangements with our allies, Australia is now on track to have US nuclear weapons on Australian soil for lengthy periods, starting very soon.
A new report released today details this dangerous development and exposes how the Australian community is being kept in the dark about it.
The report by civil society group Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR) examines efforts by the Albanese government to facilitate the increasing presence of nuclear weapons capable aircraft and submarines.
“Many Australians are completely unaware that under current agreements with the US Australian airfields and port facilities will be hosting US aircraft and subs that could be carrying nuclear weapons. And those visits will increase dramatically, possibly in breach of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty,” said AWPR spokesperson Peter Murphy.
“A massive 1.6 billion dollars is currently being spent to upgrade the Tindal RAAF base in the Northern Territory and media reports describe six B-52, long-range, nuclear-capable bombers being “housed” there. But so far there’s been no proper public debate about Australia’s increasing involvement in the US nuclear weapons system.”
The Albanese government currently has a “we don’t ask” policy when it comes to whether US aircraft and ships are carrying nuclear weapons while in Australia. At the same time the US has a “neither confirm nor deny” policy on nuclear weapons. These policies are unwarranted and unacceptable.
“It’s time to end the secrecy on nuclear weapons and let the public have an informed debate. Do we really want these weapons of mass destruction in Australia? Shouldn’t the parliament discuss and vote on these matters?”
Australians have consistently rejected any role for nuclear weapons in our defence policies. A national poll last year revealed that two-thirds of Australians want the government to sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
“In this new report we are also urging the government to initiate a full independent inquiry into the AUKUS pact, as repeatedly called for by civil society and former prime ministers and foreign ministers. It should include a comprehensive review of Australia’s policies on nuclear weapons,” Peter Murphy said.
The full report “Australia and US Nuclear Weapons: Time to End the Secrecy” is available here
British submarine arrives for ‘extraordinary’ AUKUS visit
Retired rear admiral Philip Mathias, a former director of nuclear policy with the UK Ministry of Defence, told this masthead last month he feared Australians were not adequately informed about how the troubles plaguing the British navy could scuttle the SSN-AUKUS plan.
“ there is a high probability that the UK element of AUKUS will fail,”
“Australia has shown a great deal of naivety and did not conduct sufficient due diligence on the parlous state of the UK’s nuclear submarine program before signing up to AUKUS – and parting with billions of dollars,”
Matthew Knott, SMH, February 22, 2026 —
A British nuclear-powered submarine has arrived in Australia for an unprecedented month-long visit despite the well-chronicled problems plaguing the British navy’s ability to send its vessels to sea.
The British and Australian governments are holding up the visit as a sign of the countries’ commitment to the AUKUS pact, even as the United Kingdom views Russia as its most pressing security threat.
HMS Anson, an Astute-class nuclear-powered submarine, arrived on Sunday at the HMAS Stirling naval base in Perth for a month-long maintenance visit.
described the first such visit by a UK nuclear‑powered submarine in Australia as a “historic step in our nation’s readiness to operate and maintain conventionally armed, nuclear‑powered submarines”.
HMS Anson, which was commissioned in 2022, is reportedly the only available submarine in the British navy’s fleet of five Astute-class boats, highlighting the significance of the extended deployment to Australia.
British defence publication Navy Lookout has written that the “timing of the deployment seems extraordinary” as the British navy does not have any other Astute-class submarines available.
“The UK must continue to play its part in AUKUS, but in the short term, perhaps more local concerns should be the priority,” the publication argued this month.
“Placing the sole attack submarine on the other side of the globe appears to be at odds with vigorous official warnings to Russia that ‘any threat will be met with strength and resolve’.”
Navy Lookout said the British navy’s other four Astute-class submarines were “all at low or very low readiness”…………………………………………………………………………………
The plan involves the US selling Australia at least three Virginia-class submarines while the UK and Australia partner on the development of a new class of submarine known as the SSN-AUKUS………….
Retired rear admiral Philip Mathias, a former director of nuclear policy with the UK Ministry of Defence, told this masthead last month he feared Australians were not adequately informed about how the troubles plaguing the British navy could scuttle the SSN-AUKUS plan.
“Whilst the United States may sell some [nuclear-powered submarines] to Australia, there is a high probability that the UK element of AUKUS will fail,” he said
Mathias, who led a 2010 review of the UK Trident nuclear-weapons system, said: “It is clear that Australia has shown a great deal of naivety and did not conduct sufficient due diligence on the parlous state of the UK’s nuclear submarine program before signing up to AUKUS – and parting with billions of dollars, which it has already started to do.”
The head of the British navy, First Sea Lord Gwyn Jenkins, ordered an urgent 100-day drive to tackle systemic delays in the UK submarine program in October.
UK publication Defence Eye reported that the British navy “has struggled to put more than one of its five Astute boats to sea at a time” and that “for a number of months over the past two years, no Astute boats have been at sea”. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/british-submarine-arrives-for-extraordinary-aukus-visit-20260222-p5o4d8.html
China’s Retaliation: when will it happen?
And more appropriately, what form will it take?
Jerrys take on China, Feb 18, 2026, https://jerrygrey2002.substack.com/p/chinas-retaliation-when-will-it-happen?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1744413&post_id=188346536&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
A few comments about why China is like it is – first of all, in the last 45 years, there has been no invasions, despite what people like little Marco Rubio of the US and Richard Marles the Australian Defence Minister might say, China is not and does not pose a threat to any of these countries – Japan might think there is a threat, China does not agree, in fact the opposite is true, Japan poses a much larger threat to China than China has ever posed to Japan.
China is concerned about, and in fact does feel threatened by Japan’s military expansion because the last time it happened literally millions of Chinese were murdered by the Japanese. Australia’s defence minister, Marles, asks us to consider why China has the world’s largest military expansion but he’s wrong – we have to hope he’s wrong because he’s been misinformed and is too dim to check out for himself, but more likely he knows he’s lying about this as China spends considerably less money than the US, in terms of not only its population but its geographical size, it’s quite entitled to spend more cash, when on a per capita basis, the amount is tiny compared to the US, on a ratio to GDP, it’s smaller than the US, it’s one third or less than NATO has been required to spend in terms of percentage of GDP and there’s one more very important factor that the US with only two neighbouring countries doesn’t have – that is 14 neighbouring countries with a shared land border.
Here’s another thing. China was invaded when they were weak, the British did it, the Americans did it, the eight nations alliance did it, Britain carved up part of Burma and took away some of China, it carved up India and took away parts of China, the Russians carved up Mongolia and Heilongjiang, taking away parts of China, the Japanese invaded and occupied China for 14 years. The classic twists and mental gymnastics people like Marles make would have us believe that the hundreds of US bases around China are to prevent China from doing what they’ve NEVER done – going out to invade other countries.
He, and several pundits would like us all to believe is that the US is keeping the world safe from China by arming their neighbours, interfering in the Provinces, Regions and the SARs but the reality is, China is building a military that will defend Chinese people inside China and Chinese land that belongs to China now – it’s not looking to reclaim land back, except in disputed regions.
Those disputed regions include parts of Tibet that the British took away and gave to India, parts of the South China Seas that the Japanese took away and both the US and UK, at the end of the Second World War, agreed would come back to China. There’s one military base in Africa, which is in a region shared with many other countries, including the USA, Japan, France, Italy, Germany Spain and even Saudi Arabia. Taiwan is NOT one of these disputed regions – the entire world whether they recognise Beijing or Taipei as the capital, recognises that there is one China and Taiwan is part of it – anyone who suggests that Taiwan is a country is either a liar, deliberately misleading us, or is far too dim to read the Constitution of the Republic of China, which not only claims all of the Chinese Mainland, it also wants those disputed regions back too.
China has something else which its detractors hate to admit and will lie about – that’s a policy of non-interference in the affairs of a sovereign nation – when it invests in another nation, it doesn’t call for democracy or elections, it doesn’t even ask that Communism or Socialism are accepted, it doesn’t send military to protect its assets, it won’t send missionaries to convert their subjects and it won’t impose conditions that force countries to give up their national assets or utilities if they can’t make the payments – if that sounds familiar and if it’s because you’ve been hearing that China will do all of those things and, if you think they have, I’d implore you to find me an example of where it’s happened, outside of opinion pieces written by people who want you to believe they have, almost every incident where we can find any of these things alleged, will be speculative – they’ll tell us what China might do, what China could do, what China may be doing, is alleged to have done or suspected to be involved in.
We might find individual cases of rogue Chinese people, Chinese criminals even and they use these tiny individual examples to tell you that this is “what China does” when that person who has broken the law has usually already been punished by the time they report it in western media and, if they mention that at all, it’ll be after the third paragraph where most of us have stopped reading.
On the other hand, I can find literally hundreds of examples where the USA is doing these things, where the UK and France have done these things, where Germany, Belgium, even Spain and Portugal have done them.
So then some of the comments I have been getting relate to the Port in Darwin, the ports in Panama and the Pirelli saga in Italy. Just for some background here, Sinochem owns 37% of Pirelli, the big Italian tyre company which wants to expand into the USA, of course the US won’t allow that while China has such a controlling interest. The share of Sinochem hasn’t changed, the only change is that the board, and remember Sinochem had controlling interest being the largest single shareholder, has declared that Sinochem no longer has control, giving the board more autonomy, – Sinochem agreed to this, so this isn’t a situation where anything has been taken from China, merely an agreement that the board retains control which a Chinese corporation retains more shares.
Erich, one of my followers said this: “if China doesn’t protect its assets it will lose them like Pirelli in Italy, the Ports in Panama, etc. Maybe at some point China will start caring about these things.”
My response is that it’s not just Erich, it’s literally hundreds of people, probably thousands but many in my responses who are misunderstanding China. China cares very deeply about the assets its people and corporations invest in, particularly overseas, but it will not break international laws, or contractual Agreements in order to protect them from people or governments which do break laws.
China will react to this in the same way it reacts to every other illegal action against it, by negotiations, and where they fail, arbitration, it will, when all else fails, take the appropriate legal action, which might be appeals to the WTO and perhaps even the UN or more likely the local courts – it knows there will be no satisfaction from those appeals but they are the legal mechanisms open to Chinese corporation. China as a government participates in legal and lawful bodies and does not want to overthrow them, to do so, makes China another USA – so the actions China takes, which will definitely be retaliatory, will be legal, they can, and probably will reduce purchases from offending countries, and of course, they will be much more careful in the decisions when investing in those countries both of which are well within their legal rights.
What China will not do is: unilaterally sanction anyone, any country or even any organisation within the country, it will not militarily defend its assets, it will not interfere in the internal affairs of another country but there is no doubt in my mind that if any country persists and acts on threats to China’s investments, there will be repercussions, probably it’s best not to call them retaliations, they are simply normal responses to a situation of risk.
In Australia for example, if they persist with this challenge to the legal investments Landbridge has made, investments that are compliant in every way and even beneficial to the people of the Northern Territory in jobs and payroll taxes, as well as increased business going through it’s port and beneficial to the people of Australia in 4.5 million income tax paid last year, those are the people who will suffer – China will find other suppliers for the things Australia sends – so far, the only one which is not directly sourced elsewhere is iron ore and, if China stops buying that in any great quantity, it will kill Australia’s economy.
Just continuing to use Darwin Port as an example, it is a critical trade hub in Northern Australia, handling minerals, agriculture, and livestock, with 2,295 vessel visits recorded in 2024-25, marking a 31.07% increase on the previous year. Darwin serves as a key gateway to Asia, managing significant exports of manganese, titanium, iron ore, and livestock. Given that China is the major trading partner of Australia, a huge proportion, unfortunately, there’s no way I can find out, would be Chinese owned, flagged, operated or destined ships, they would be travelling between China and Darwin – that’s 44 ships a week, many of which will simply divert to other ports, or, if the asset has been seized they’re more likely to simply stop coming altogether – how can that possibly benefit the warehouses, the truckers, the waste management, the catering and hospitality venues that the sailors use, the customs brokers, the security and surveillance companies – there’s an entire eco-system of industries deriving their income from a well-operated port and Darwin, which is a small city will feel a very heavy impact from no Chinese ships arriving and departing there. There will also be a lot of farmers, miners and other suppliers using that port to ship to China – it will all stop.
So, to think China will just sit back and do nothing is wrong, they are very mindful that their investments are not just at risk but under threat – business leaders in China understand this and are already taking action – there’s an April 2024 KPMG report, that’s almost 2 years old now showing that China’s investments in Australia have declined from a peak in 2016, just after the Free Trade Agreement was signed to the lowest level since 2006. It’s well worth a read if you’re interested, the report defines all kinds of factors but fails to mention the obvious one – Australia simply doesn’t want Chinese investment, they feel threatened by perceptions given to them by media which are completely false.
In keeping with the maxim that one person’s loss is another’s gain, the vast majority of China’s Overseas Direct Investment is now going to One Belt One Road countries – these are safe destinations, they are countries that welcome trade with and investments from China. In the Western world, that’s not many countries. Leaders of Canada and the UK were recently in China seeking investment opportunities, in both cases, they returned to their home countries to media criticism. It remains to be seen how they will handle this but they, as leaders, and their business leaders all know the truth – the media is lying, a few politicians who are actually paid by Washington to further lie about China are losing influence. Some people will assume that I’m either exaggerating about this but the reality is there for all to see, if you don’t believe me, go look up who are the main funders of the Inter Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC). It states clearly on its website that it does not accept funds from governments. But then lists the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican movement, Hello Taiwan the National Democratic Institute and others, all of which are government funded and almost all of which can trace their funds back to Washington DC and congressionally approved expenditure.
The vast majority of the Non-US aligned world realises – there is no threat from China and, once again I reiterate something I’ve said many times, the people telling you China is a threat are more likely to damage your economy and your global standing than China ever will – China isn’t a threat, it’s those people telling you it is, who are.
US congressional report explores option of not delivering any Aukus nuclear submarines to Australia.
COMMENT – What a typical USA plan?
They reneg on delivering the “goods” sold, but keep the $368 billion!
the Congressional Research report describes an alternative “military division of labour”, under which the US would not sell any Virginia-class submarines to Australia.
Report offers alternative of the US navy retaining boats and operating them out of Australian bases
Ben Doherty, Guardian, 6 Feb 26
A new United States congressional report openly contemplates not selling any nuclear submarines to Australia – as promised under the Aukus agreement – because America wants to retain control of the submarines for a potential conflict with China over Taiwan.
The report by the US Congressional Research Service, Congress’s policy research arm, posits an alternative “military division of labour” under which the submarines earmarked for sale to Australia are instead retained under US command to be sailed out of Australian bases.
One of the arguments made against the US selling submarines to Australia is that Australia has refused to commit to supporting America in a conflict with China over Taiwan. Boats under US command could be deployed into that conflict.
The report, released on 26 January, cites statements from the Australian defence minister, Richard Marles, and the chief of navy that Australia would make “no promises … that Australia would support the United States” in the event of war with China over Taiwan.
“Selling three to five Virginia-class SSNs [nuclear-powered general-purpose attack submarines] to Australia would thus convert those SSNs from boats that would be available for use in a US-China crisis or conflict into boats that might not be available for use in a US-China crisis or conflict,” the report argues.
“This could weaken rather than strengthen deterrence and warfighting capability in connection with a US-China crisis or conflict.”
Under the existing Aukus “optimal pathway’, Australia will first buy between three and five Virginia-class nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines, the first in 2032.
Following that, the first of eight Australian-built Aukus submarines, based on a UK design, is slated to be in the water “in the early 2040s”.
But the Congressional Research report describes an alternative “military division of labour”, under which the US would not sell any Virginia-class submarines to Australia.
The boats not sold to Australia “would instead be retained in US Navy service and operated out of Australia” alongside US and UK attack submarines already planned to rotate through Australian bases.
The report speculated Australia could use the money saved to invest on other defence capabilities, even using those capabilities as a subordinate force in support of US missions.
“Australia, instead of using funds to purchase, build, operate, and maintain its own SSNs, would instead invest those funds in other military capabilities – such as … long-range anti-ship missiles, drones, loitering munitions, B-21 long-range bombers … or systems for defending Australia against attack … so as to create an Australian capacity for performing other missions, including non-SSN military missions for both Australia and the United States.”
The report also raises cybersecurity concerns, noting that “hackers linked to China” are “highly active” in attempting to penetrate Australian government and contractors’ computers.
It argues that sharing nuclear submarine technology with another country “would increase the attack surface, meaning the number of potential digital and physical entry points that China, Russia, or some other country could attempt to penetrate to gain access to that technology”.
The debate over whether the US should sell boats to Australia is also grounded in ongoing concern over low rates of shipbuilding in the US: the country’s shipyards are failing to build enough submarines to supply America’s own navy, let alone build boats for Australia.
For the past 15 years, the US Navy has ordered boats at a rate of two a year, but its shipyards have never met that build rate “and since 2022 has been limited to about 1.1 to 1.2 boats per year, resulting in a growing backlog of boats procured but not yet built”.
The US fleet currently has only three-quarters of the submarines it needs (49 boats of a force-level goal of 66). Shipyards need to build Virginia-class submarines at a rate of two a year to meet America’s own needs, and to lift that to 2.33 boats a year in order to be able to supply submarines to Australia.
Legislation passed by the US Congress prohibits the sale of any submarine to Australia if the US needs it for its own fleet. The US commander-in-chief – the president of the day – must certify that America relinquishing a submarine “will not degrade the United States undersea capabilities”.
The report argues that Australia’s strict nuclear non-proliferation laws could also weaken US submarine force projection under the current Aukus plan.
Australian officials have consistently told US counterparts that, in adherence to Australia’s commitments as a non-nuclear weapon state under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Australia’s attack submarines can only ever be armed with conventional weapons.
“Selling three to five Virginia-class SSNs to Australia would thus convert those SSNs from boats that could in the future be armed with the US nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile with an aim of enhancing deterrence,” the report states……………………………………………………………………. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/05/not-delivering-any-aukus-nuclear-submarines-to-australia-explored-as-option-in-us-congressional-report
Possibility of US ever selling Australia nuclear submarines is increasingly remote, Aukus critics say.
“The Aukus deal is a very attractive one for the Americans because they get a submarine base and dockyard at Australia’s expense in Western Australia, and they do not have any obligation to sell any Virginia-class submarines to us unless their navy can spare them.
“If the US say ‘there are no subs for you Australia’, it is not reneging on the deal: that is the deal, that is what Australia signed up to. That’s why it’s always been a bad deal for Australia.”
“The Australian government seems to be engaged in an exercise of denial: whenever these figures come out they have apologists who say ‘everything’s fine, there’s nothing see here’.
Malcolm Turnbull says government is ‘engaged in an exercise of denial’, as defence minister insists $368bn deal is ‘full steam ahead’
Ben Doherty, 6 Feb 26, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/05/aukus-nuclear-submarine-deal-us-australia
Australia’s submarine agency insists the Aukus agreement is progressing “at pace and on schedule”, but sceptics of the $368bn deal argue the chances of the US ever selling promised Virginia-class submarines to Australia are increasingly remote.
The former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has said the Australian government is engaged “in an exercise of denial” about the parlous state of Aukus’s progress, while the Greens senator David Shoebridge said the deal was a “pantomime”, hopelessly one-sided in the US’s favour.
A new United States congressional report has openly contemplated the US navy not selling any nuclear submarines to Australia – as promised under Aukus – because the US wants to retain control of the submarines for a potential conflict with China over Taiwan.
The US fleet currently has only three-quarters of the submarines it needs (49 boats of a force-level goal of 66). Shipyards need to build Virginia-class submarines at a rate of two a year to meet the US’s own needs, and to lift that to 2.33 boats a year in order to be able to supply submarines to Australia.
Legislation passed by the US Congress prohibits the sale of any submarine to Australia if the US needs it for its own fleet. The US commander in chief – the president of the day – must certify that the US relinquishing a submarine “will not degrade the United States undersea capabilities”.
Turnbull said US shipbuilding rates had “remained stubbornly set at that low level for a long time, despite many billions of dollars of extra investment”, and that expecting build rates to almost double within a couple of years in order to supply Australia with vessels was unrealistic.
“The Australian government seems to be engaged in an exercise of denial: whenever these figures come out they have apologists who say ‘everything’s fine, there’s nothing see here’.”
The January report by the US Congressional Research Service, Congress’s policy research arm, posits an alternative “military division of labour” under which the submarines earmarked for sale to Australia are instead retained under US command to be sailed out of Australian bases.
The report argues both for and against the US selling three Virginia-class submarines to Australia, beginning in 2032. But it makes the case that, in the event of a “conflict or crisis” with China over Taiwan, submarines under Australian command could not be ordered into operation, whereas US-commanded vessels, operated out of Australian bases, could be immediately deployed. Australia has consistently maintained it could offer no guarantees of supporting the US in a conflict with China.
“This could weaken rather than strengthen deterrence and warfighting capability in connection with a US-China crisis or conflict,” the report says.
The defence minister, Richard Marles, dismissed the report as “commentary” when asked on Thursday, insisting Aukus was “full steam ahead”.
“You’re going to hear a whole lot of commentary at the end of the day from the US Congress,” Marles said.
“We’ve heard the US president make clear the position of the United States in respect of this question, and he has said that we are full steam ahead in respect of this, and it includes the transfer of the Virginias.”
A spokesperson for the Australian Submarine Agency told the Guardian that Aukus remained firmly in the strategic interests of its three partners – Australia, the US and the UK – and that “Australia’s commitment to the Aukus partnership is unwavering”.
“All three Aukus partners are investing significantly in our respective industrial bases to ensure the success of Aukus, to meet respective requirements and timelines, including the delivery of three Virginia-class submarines to Australia by the US.”
The spokesperson said Aukus was progressing “at pace and on schedule”.
“The optimal pathway has been designed to ensure a methodical, safe and secure transition from Australian conventional submarines, drawing on more than 70 years’ experience and expertise of our Aukus partners in the safe and effective operation of naval nuclear propulsion.”
Turnbull: ‘It’s always been a bad deal for Australia’
Politically, in the US the Aukus agreement won approval from a Pentagon review last year, which supported the deal continuing. President Donald Trump – who won’t be the president to decide whether or not to sell US submarines to Australia – told reporters the deal was “full steam ahead”.
But Turnbull, the prime minister whose deal to buy submarines from the French group Naval was torn up by Scott Morrison in favour of Aukus, has long argued the Aukus agreement has always been irretrievably lop-sided in the US’s favour.
“The Aukus deal is a very attractive one for the Americans because they get a submarine base and dockyard at Australia’s expense in Western Australia, and they do not have any obligation to sell any Virginia-class submarines to us unless their navy can spare them.
“If the US say ‘there are no subs for you Australia’, it is not reneging on the deal: that is the deal, that is what Australia signed up to. That’s why it’s always been a bad deal for Australia.”
The congressional research report highlighted, again, the lagging rates of US shipbuilding.
For the past 15 years, the US navy has ordered Virginia-class submarines at a rate of two a year, but its shipyards have never met that build rate “and since 2022 has been limited to about 1.1 to 1.2 boats per year, resulting in a growing backlog of boats procured but not yet built”.
Senator David Shoebridge, the Greens’ defence and foreign affairs spokesperson, said the US’s division of labour proposal exposed the “pantomime” that the Aukus agreement was concerned with Australia’s defence.
“No matter what flag is painted on the side of any nuclear submarines Australia gets, they will be US-controlled and US-directed.
“Critics of Aukus have always assumed that the US will not hand over any nuclear submarines unless Australia guarantees they will use them in a US war with China. This report now confirms this is the dominant view in Washington.”
Shoebridge said the Aukus deal was dangerously compromising Australian sovereignty to US interests, at the cost of billions in public funds.
“The fact that Trump, with his ‘America first’ approach to squeezing and humiliating US allies, is willing to press on with Aukus tells you all you need to know about the one-sided deal. If Trump wants it, we should resist it.”.
In Australia The Police Beat You Up For Opposing Genocide.
Caitlin Johnstone, Feb 10, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/in-australia-the-police-beat-you?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=187467234&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Australian authorities were fully aware that inviting Israel’s president for a visit was going to ignite unrest and furious opposition. They invited him anyway, and sent in the police to assault the protesters.
I saw a video of two cops pinning a kid in a keffiyeh face down on the ground and proceeding to punch him over and over again long after he’d been subdued.
I saw another video of police repeatedly punching a middle-aged man who was holding his hands in the air until he fell to the ground.
I saw another video of police repeatedly pepper spraying a demonstrator directly in the face as he was visibly complying with their demands to move and providing no resistance whatsoever.
I saw another video of police manhandling Muslim men who were literally on their knees praying, presenting no possible threat of any kind.
That’s right kids, welcome to Australia, where the government invites the head of a genocidal apartheid state for a happy cuddle party and then beats the shit out of anyone who opposes this.
It’s a testament to the courage and vitality of the pro-Palestine movement in Australia that people keep showing up to anti-genocide protests even as authorities do everything they can to create a chilling effect on them.
After all, this happens as the state of Queensland moves to make it illegal to utter the pro-Palestine phrases “from the river to the sea” or “globalise the intifada”, with violations punishable by two years in prison. This is easily the single most bat shit insane speech suppression legislation in Australian history, and that’s an extremely high bar.
To be clear, not one person sincerely believes that “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is a genocidal or antisemitic statement. This is one of those many, many instances in which Israel supporters are pretending to believe something they do not actually believe in order to further outlaw criticism of Israel.
They’re trying to make it so that nobody feels comfortable opposing Israel’s abuses without first consulting with a lawyer about what exactly they are legally permitted to say in that moment, thereby throwing a chilling effect on pro-Palestine activism throughout the nation.
This comes weeks after the Australian government passed frightening new “hate speech” laws in the name of “combatting antisemitism” which will make it much easier to designate activist groups as “hate groups”. Australian officials have conspicuously refused to say that the new laws will not be used to ban groups for speech that is critical of Israel, which tells you all you need to know about the real intentions at work here.
This also comes as the state of New South Wales cracks down on protests with extreme aggression, banning protests in certain areas and seeking to outlaw the use of the phrase “globalise the intifada” to appease Australia’s obscenely powerful Israel lobby. Premier Chris Minns is presently defending the actions of the police he sent in to crack skulls at the Herzog protests on Monday.
Just two months ago a prominent member of the Australian Israel lobby publicly announced that he wants a total ban on pro-Palestine protests throughout the nation, and said it is criticism of Israel that is the problem, not just hatred toward Jews. Joel Burnie, Executive Manager of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), explicitly said that what he wants is “No more protests! No more protests!” in Australia.
“I for one as a Jewish leader will no long talk about antisemitism in isolation from Israel, because it’s the rhetoric and language on Israel that motivates the people to come and kill us,” Burnie said during a video conference, later adding that “ language on Israel invading all of our social spaces in Australia have made this country a very unsafe space and place for Jews.”
Increment by increment, Joel Burnie and his ilk have been getting their wish ever since. Australian civil rights are indeed being disintegrated to protect the information interests of a genocidal apartheid state.
Albanese v Albanese
Then there is the damning evidence of Anthony Albanese’s Italian namesake, Francesca Albanese, by now an expert and fearless forensic rapporteur on Gaza, genocide and Israel.
She bows to no president or prime minister and wears the onslaught of their wrath as a badge of honour.
A United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Albanese’s courageous reports have become a reliable touchstone for historians, academics, students, journalists, so-called ‘ordinary people’ humanitarians, intelligence personnel and key actors of all involved in the Gaza ‘Crime Scene.’
10 February 2026, Tess Lawrence, https://theaimn.net/albanese-v-albanese/
ALBANESE v ALBANESE
HERZOG, GENOCIDAL TERRORIST?
The Australian Government has rolled out the red carpet for Israel’s President Isaac Herzog, a carpet sodden in the blood of more than 71,000 people murdered in Gaza since the Hamas led terrorist invasion of October 7, 2023.
That audacious Hamas massacre and hostage taking of mostly civilians attending the Nova Festival, was a precision operation that easily penetrated Israel’s so-called invincible ‘iron dome’ in what was indisputably a monumental military embarrassment and collective security fail by all of Israel’s lauded security tiers as well as by self lauded ‘Mr Security’ himself, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, indicted on criminal charges in his own country and cited as a genocidal criminal, outside of it.
In an untidy and hasty attempt to assuage volatile community anger, unrest and widespread political dissent caused by Australia’s own security fail, the Bondi Beach Islamic State inspired terrorist attack on December 14, that also targeted Jews and others celebrating the festival – Hanukkah – Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese thought it wise to capitulate to a babel of political, religious and public dialects and invite a racist man of war to Australia, rather than a person of peace.
The notion that a visit by the rabid war mongering Herzog will help ameliorate swelling anti-semitism is preposterous. He may well bring comfort to some Australian jews and those who support Netanyahu’s fascist Far Reich but the reality is that not all Australian jews want this avowed genocidal terrorist to visit Australia or indeed for him to be deemed as representative of all jewish Australians, let alone jews in Israel. The constants protests and marches against Netanyahu in Israel atest to the latter.
Netanyahu’s Take On Nazism
Typically, jewish dissenters do not receive as much attention in both mainstream and indie media and endure all manner of toxic insult, including being branded by jewish Netanyahu supporters in the diaspora, as Hamas stooges, jewish traitors, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Hurled epithets of being ‘self-loathing jews’ have long worn thin as a horrified world – including horrified jews – are confronted with the ugly reality of Netanyahu’s latter day take on nazism and industrial strength ethnic cleansing.
Last month, a number of groups, the majority of them representing jewish organisations, wrote to Governor-General Sam Mostyn and Prime Minister Albanese, asking that Herzog’s invitation to visit Australia, be retracted:
Her Excellency the Honourable Ms Sam Mostyn AC
Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia
Government House
Dunrossil Drive
YARRALUMLA ACT 2600The Hon Anthony Albanese MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600Monday, 5 January 2026
Dear Governor-General and Prime Minister,
We write to urgently ask for the retraction of the Australian Government’s invitation to President Isaac Herzog of Israel.
This invitation risks violating Australia’s international obligations and exacerbating racism and antisemitism during an incredibly fragile moment.
President Herzog is not a neutral or ceremonial head of state. The UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory concluded in September 2025 that Israeli President Isaac Herzog had “incited the commission of genocide and that Israeli authorities have failed to take action against them to punish this incitement.”
In October 2023, he publicly attributed collective responsibility to the civilian population of Gaza, stating: “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. This rhetoric about civilians not being involved – it’s absolutely not true. They could have risen up… And we will fight until we break their backbone.”
Herzog’s comments have been cited by international legal scholars and human rights organisations as normalising collective punishment, prohibited under international humanitarian law, and form part of the evidentiary context before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide are clear. Article 1 imposes an obligation to prevent genocide that arises once a State becomes aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, of a serious risk that genocide may be committed. Article III further prohibits not only genocide itself but also complicity, including conduct that knowingly aids, abets, or legitimises the commission or incitement of genocidal acts. The International Court of Justice’s provisional measures in South Africa v Israel place all States Parties on notice of a plausible risk of acts falling within the scope of the Convention. In these circumstances, proceeding with an official visit by President Isaac Herzog would expose Australia to credible claims that it has engaged in conduct inconsistent with its obligations under international law.
Herzog has been fully implicated in Israel’s military aggression. In December 2023 he was witnessed signing an artillery shell bound for Gaza and in 2024 he falsely denied Israeli responsibility for the illegal attacks using pagers and walkie-talkies in Lebanon, killing twelve people, including children, and wounding three thousand.
Facilitating this visit does nothing to support the healing of Jewish communities in Australia, following the horrific massacre in Bondi. Hosting a figure publicly associated with the continuation of the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, and the ongoing occupation and displacement within Palestinian territories, risks further deepening divisions within a community already grappling with the harmful conflation of Zionism (a political ideology), Judaism (a religion), and Jewish identity and will further alienate our own community while increasing the risk of antisemitism. Publicly hosting this head of state risks exacerbating antisemitism by implicitly associating Jewish Australians with alleged war crimes over which they have no control.
Jewish communities are not united. Some, both religious and secular, are not Zionist or identify as anti-Zionist. Many fundamentally disagree with Israel’s brutal occupation and apartheid regime and are outspoken about the Gaza genocide and Australia’s complicity in it.
Mass protests must be expected if President Herzog arrives in Australia. Protests will include a very large contingent of Jewish participants, reflecting moral opposition to ongoing atrocities.
Official engagement in the face of such demonstrable community opposition would risk inflaming tensions, fracturing social cohesion, and undermining public safety. It would further undermine Australia’s credibility as a defender of international law and inflame anti-Palestinian racism by further dehumanising Palestinians. These consequences are foreseeable, preventable, and incompatible with Australia’s legal and moral responsibilities.
A principled decision to retract the invitation would affirm the Australian Government’s commitment to ethical values, international law and the protection of all communities from racism and antisemitism.
Yours sincerely,
Jewish Council of Australia
Jews for Palestine (WA)
Loud Jew Collective
Jews Against the Occupation ’48
Jewish Voices of Inner Sydney
Coalition of Women for Justice and Peace
Jewish Advocates for Understanding Antisemitism
Jews for Justice
Anti-Zionism Australia
Jews for a Free Palestine
Jewish Women 4 Peace Action Ready Group
Jews Who Do Not Support Netanyahu And Who Do Support
Two State Solution Don’t Get Equal Media Time
Typically, in mainstream and even indie media at times, the views of jews who support a two state solution for Palestine and Israel and who do NOT support Netanyahu, Herzog et al or their murderous genocidal implementation of a final solution to annihilate Palestine and Palestinians in this Holocaust 2, perpetrated by the Netanyahu Government, simply don’t get equal media time.
“Inviting a foreign head of state who is implicated in an ongoing genocide as a representative of the Jewish community is deeply offensive and risks entrenching the dangerous and antisemitic conflation between Jewish identity and the actions of the Israeli state. This does not make Jews safer. It does the opposite.” Sarah Schwartz, Executive Officer of the Jewish Council of Australia.
The Jewish Council of Australia
DIGNITY. EQUALITY. FREEDOM. FOR ALL.
‘The Jewish Council of Australia is an organisation of Jewish people in Australia who are committed to the Jewish values of tikkun olam (repairing the world), calling out injustice, challenging assumptions and promoting debate. We work towards ending antisemitism and all forms of racism and we support Palestinian freedom and justice.’
On January 28th, the Jewish Council of Australia issued a second statement condemning Herzog’s visit:
Read more: Albanese v AlbaneseJewish Council calls on Albanese to rescind Herzog invitation
28 January, 2026 / Media Release
The President of Israel, Isaac Herzog, has confirmed today that he will visit Australia from 8 to 12 February and will meet with members of the Australian Jewish community.
The Jewish Council of Australia as expressed outrage that the Albanese Government would fuel the flames of division by inviting Herzog to visit Australia, warning that his trip is completely inappropriate and offensive and will rightly spark mass protests.
President Isaac Herzog is directly implicated in Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. He has made public statements, including that an “entire nation is responsible” for October 7, which have been cited by the International Court of Justice and other international bodies examining breaches of the Genocide Convention.
This should be a moment for collective mourning, reflection and care. It is not a moment to host the head of a state which has been found to have committed a genocide in Gaza.
“By inviting Herzog to visit, Albanese is using Jewish grief as a political prop and diplomatic backdrop,” said Sarah Schwartz, Executive Officer of the Jewish Council of Australia.
“Inviting a foreign head of state who is implicated in an ongoing genocide as a representative of the Jewish community is deeply offensive and risks entrenching the dangerous and antisemitic conflation between Jewish identity and the actions of the Israeli state. This does not make Jews safer. It does the opposite.”
Instead of proceeding with this visit, the Jewish Council urges the Government to pursue concrete actions, supported by over 60,000 Australians who have signed the Jewish Council’s petition, that address the root causes of violence, racism and impunity, and that uphold international law.
“Our safety will not come from aligning with Netanyahu or Trump,” said Schwartz. “It will come from dismantling racism, rejecting collective punishment, and standing consistently for human rights and justice for all.”
“Growing numbers of Jews in Australia and globally oppose the actions of the Israeli government and reject its attempts to speak in our name. We refuse to be ignored or silenced.”
“Conflating Judaism with the policies of a state accused of genocide and crimes against humanity erases our voice and fuels antisemitism rather than combating it.”
The last time I visited their website, 63,885 people had signed the JCA petition for Australians to unite against attempts to divide the community.
From the website:
”… Pitting Jewish safety against Palestinians, Muslims and migrant communities, and eroding all of our civil liberties, doesn’t make Jews safer. It makes the real fight against antisemitism harder… “
On January 30th, Medianet published a press release by The Jewish Council of Australia, the Australian National Imams Council and The Hind Rajab Foundation announcing that esteemed barrister Robert Richter KC had filed a formal legal complaint sent to Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) alleging that “Herzog has incited genocide and aided and abetted war crimes, rendering him unfit to enter the country under Australian law.”
The 30 page submission warns that the visit of President Herzog is “highly infammatory.”
From the press release:
The groups are calling on the AFP to initiate a criminal investigation of Herzog under the Commonwealth Criminal Code.
The urgent request details a “sustained pattern of incitement and hate speech” by the President, specifically citing:
- The “Entire Nation” Declaration: Herzog’s October 2023 statement that there are no “uninvolved” civilians in Gaza, which the groups argue stripped 2.3 million people of their protected status under international humanitarian law and urged the IDF to treat the entire population as a military target.
- Famine Denial: Herzog’s August 2025 claims that images of starving Gazan children were “staged – a statement made while famine was setting in and which the brief describes as a “conscious effort to obscure war crimes.”
- Endorsement of Military Operations Involving War Crimes: A December 2023 visit to the Nahal Oz military base where Herzog reportedly “encouraged” troops 48 hours before the “wanton destruction” and “flattening” of the Palestinian town of Khuza’a.
The submission rejects any claim that Herzog has diplomatic immunity, citing the Nuremberg Principles and international law to argue that heads of state have no shield against charges of genocide or war crimes. The groups warn that if the government fails to act, it would signal “acquiescence to genocidal rhetoric.”
“If the Prime Minister of Israel is not permitted to visit Australia, the President should not be allowed to act as his surrogate,” the complaint states, referencing the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”
Bilal Rauf, Senior Advisor, Australian National Imams Council (ANIC):
“In recent times, Australia’s social cohesion has been under threat. Now more than ever, it is incumbent upon all of us, particularly our political leaders, to seek to protect our social cohesion as a country and society and ensure that individuals who may inflame the situation by their very presence, are not permitted into our country. The proposed visit by the Israeli President Isaac Herzog, a highly controversial foreign head of state accused of serious international crimes, risks inflaming social tensions, undermining Australia’s hate-speech protections, and placing Australian communities at risk. ANIC calls on the Government, which has hurriedly passed laws in the name of social cohesion, to refuse or cancel any visa held by President Herzog. In pursuing this, among other outcomes, ANIC joins with the Jewish Council of Australia and the Hind Rajab Foundation, in pursuing the complaint.”
Dyab Abou Jahjah, Hind Rajab:
“When a head of state publicly denies civilian protection, dismisses famine, and encourages military operations marked by widespread civilian harm and destruction, those acts carry legal consequences everywhere. No country – including Australia – should become a safe haven for individuals credibly accused of inciting genocide or aiding and abetting war crimes. Australia has a duty to uphold the rule of law and protect its communities from such threats.”
Ohad Kozminsky, Executive Member, Jewish Council of Australia:
“President Herzog represents a state found to be committing genocide in Gaza. His presence in Australia would identify this state with Australian Jews, which risks exacerbating social division and endangering Australian Jewish communities. We stand firmly against all forms of racism, and President Herzog’s statements attributing collective guilt to an entire people are a textbook manifestation of anti-Palestinian racism and Israel’s ongoing campaign of dehumanisation.”
Francesca Albanese
Then there is the damning evidence of Anthony Albanese’s Italian namesake, Francesca Albanese, by now an expert and fearless forensic rapporteur on Gaza, genocide and Israel.
She bows to no president or prime minister and wears the onslaught of their wrath as a badge of honour.
A United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Albanese’s courageous reports have become a reliable touchstone for historians, academics, students, journalists, so-called ‘ordinary people’ humanitarians, intelligence personnel and key actors of all involved in the Gaza ‘Crime Scene.’
AIMN will publish some of her work in full, so readers can learn from the source herself, without filters and without selective reduction by we journalists.
You will come to understand why she is feared by both the Hamas led terrorist cohort in Gaza and Netanyahu and his Far Reich.
She exposes the atrocities of these murderous thugs without fear or favour and goes to war against genocide and perpetrators, weaponless and without flak jacket, armed only with her brief to bear witness for the world. For us. For them. For the least of us.
Selective context: Why Isaac Herzog’s visit deepens Australia’s moral failure
It would be hard to imagine a more divisive guest in this country. The Jewish Council of Australia has expressed ‘outrage that the Albanese Government would fuel the flames of division by inviting Herzog to visit Australia, warning that his trip is completely inappropriate and offensive and will rightly spark mass protest’. Herzog, the Council said, ‘has played an active role in the ongoing destruction of Gaza, including the murder of tens of thousands of Palestinians and the displacement of millions’.
By Sue Wareham | 9 February 2026, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/selective-context-why-isaac-herzogs-visit-deepens-australias-moral-failure,20660
Calls to ‘consider the context’ of President Herzog’s visit obscure Israel’s ban on dozens of NGOs in Gaza and the West Bank, writes Dr Sue Wareham.
AHEAD OF TODAY’S VISIT to Australia by Israeli President Isaac Herzog and the anticipated large protests against it, Foreign Minister Penny Wong asked us to ‘consider the context’ of the visit.
Part of that context is the horrific massacre of 15 Jewish Australians at Bondi in December and the deep sense of grief felt throughout Jewish communities and beyond.
However, the context also includes the destruction by Israel of practically every aspect of civilian society in Gaza, with over ten per cent of the population directly killed or injured since October 2023 and barely a soul alive who has not been traumatised in multiple ways, including bereavement, displacement, and deprivation of food, clean water, sanitation, shelter and other essentials.
Herzog is not an innocent bystander, as Israel’s breaches of international law in Gaza and the West Bank have become so commonplace as to be almost normalised. In September 2025, the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory accused him of inciting genocide, citing his statement that “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible”, made soon after Hamas’ brutal attacks of 7 October 2023. The entire Palestinian population has been punished ever since.
That collective punishment has deeply affected very many Palestinian Australians, as they grieve the loss of loved ones in Gaza, and have watched helplessly as remaining loved ones have faced deprivation, multiple displacements and a dire humanitarian situation.
Despite the “ceasefire” that began in early October 2025 (a ceasefire which appears to mean fewer bombs rather than no bombs), the collective punishment continues.
Israeli authorities have now de-registered and are effectively banning 37 international humanitarian organisations (INGOs) from operating in Gaza and the West Bank. Unless the organisations comply with Israeli demands to provide personal data on all their staff – in a context where over 500 humanitarian workers have been killed in Gaza since 7 October 2023 – they will have to withdraw from all the Occupied Palestinian Territory by the start of March.
This poses an impossible choice for INGOs — to either compromise staff safety or to abandon people who are in desperate need. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), as one of the affected agencies, has made the extremely painful decision that it will not comply with Israeli demands for staff information. MSF’s statement of 30 January said that ‘despite repeated efforts, it became evident in recent days that we were unable to build engagement with Israeli authorities on the concrete assurances [regarding staff safety] required’.
MSF states that if the agency is expelled from Gaza and the West Bank, ‘it would have a devastating impact, as Palestinians face a brutal winter amidst destroyed homes and urgent humanitarian needs’ with basic services including food, water, shelter, healthcare, fuel and livelihoods largely destroyed, and a health system that is ‘nearly non-functional’.
Oxfam’s assessment of 3 January is similar, stating that ‘Despite the ceasefire, humanitarian needs remain extreme’. The removal of these services would ‘close health facilities, halt food distributions, collapse shelter pipelines and cut off life-saving care’.
Oxfam noted that INGOs already operate according to strict compliance and due diligence standards.
Setting aside any moral imperative to provide aid for fellow humans who are suffering, Israel’s actions in banning INGO access violate the nation’s legal obligations, as the occupying force, to ensure the health and welfare of the civilian population.
They also violate the January 2024 International Court of Justice ruling that Israel ‘must take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip’.
Far from complying with the law, Israel continues to actively block the delivery of essential aid to a population in urgent need, and is now enforcing INGO registration conditions that exceed routine oversight and undermine humanitarian neutrality and independence.
For the many Palestinian Australians and their loved ones in Gaza, Israel’s actions have devastating consequences. And yet their grief and distress are not part of Minister Wong’s selective “context” for the visit of President Herzog.
It would be hard to imagine a more divisive guest in this country. The Jewish Council of Australia has expressed ‘outrage that the Albanese Government would fuel the flames of division by inviting Herzog to visit Australia, warning that his trip is completely inappropriate and offensive and will rightly spark mass protest’. Herzog, the Council said, ‘has played an active role in the ongoing destruction of Gaza, including the murder of tens of thousands of Palestinians and the displacement of millions’.
Australia’s stance could have been very different. Apart from choosing our guests more sensitively and avoiding those accused of the most grievous crimes, Australia should long since have applied meaningful sanctions against Israeli individuals and the State of Israel itself.
Foreign Minister Wong has the power to determine that Israel’s ongoing deliberate obstruction of aid and its collective punishment of the Palestinian people meet the threshold of “serious violation or abuse” under Australia’s sanctions regime. She has chosen instead to insulate Israel from accountability, thus undermining the universality of international law and eroding Australia’s credibility as an independent nation.
The people of Palestine and their loved ones here pay a heavy price for Australia’s failure to act.
Sanctions against Israel are not likely to be announced in the coming days, but the need for them is only growing.
Sheikh who led prayer at Sydney protest against Herzog says police were ‘unhinged and aggressive’
Ben Doherty and Jordyn Beazley, 10 Feb 26, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/feb/10/sheikh-who-led-prayer-at-sydney-protest-against-herzog-says-police-were-unhinged-and-aggressive-ntwnfb
Any officers who acted unlawfully should face prosecution for actions, Muslim groups say
New South Wales police who grabbed men kneeling in prayer during a protest in Sydney against Israeli president Isaac Herzog’s visit should face prosecution, a coalition of Muslim organisations has said.
The joint statement demanded an apology from the state premier and called for the resignation of the NSW police commissioner after the incident on Monday night, with the man leading the prayer calling the police response “unhinged” and “aggressive”.
Video shot at a protest in Sydney on Monday night showed about a dozen men, led by Sheikh Wesam Charkawi, kneeling in prayer in two straight lines in the forecourt of Sydney Town Hall. The men did not appear to be blocking a road or marching, which is effectively banned in designated areas under a NSW law passed after the Bondi antisemitic terror att
Any officers who acted unlawfully should face prosecution for actions, Muslim groups say
New South Wales police who grabbed men kneeling in prayer during a protest in Sydney against Israeli president Isaac Herzog’s visit should face prosecution, a coalition of Muslim organisations has said.
The joint statement demanded an apology from the state premier and called for the resignation of the NSW police commissioner after the incident on Monday night, with the man leading the prayer calling the police response “unhinged” and “aggressive”.
Video shot at a protest in Sydney on Monday night showed about a dozen men, led by Sheikh Wesam Charkawi, kneeling in prayer in two straight lines in the forecourt of Sydney Town Hall. The men did not appear to be blocking a road or marching, which is effectively banned in designated areas under a NSW law passed after the Bondi antisemitic terror attack.
Video showed that, as the men prayed, police officers descended on the group, grabbing those at the edge of the prayer group and dragging them along the ground.
The men in prayer did not respond and continued to pray. Other protesters yelled at police “Leave them” and “They’re fucking praying”.
Charkawi said police had used violence at an otherwise peaceful protest.
“[Police were] so unhinged, so aggressive and so violent and had zero regard for anyone and anything in their way, even peaceful worshippers who were not in anyone’s way.”
Charkawi said he and his fellow worshippers were about 15 minutes behind schedule to hold sunset prayer towards the end of the demonstration.
He said as he prayed, “we could obviously hear a big ruckus behind us. And I saw people … being flung off on my right, flung off on my left.”
In the footage, Charkawi can be seen continuing to kneel in prayer.
“When you’re in prayer, you’re not allowed to break it for any reason. There’s got to be a catastrophe, or some type of emergency that is happening, for us to do that,” he said.
As he was pulled by police, he said he felt like his shoulder was nearly ripped out of its socket.
“We weren’t disobeying any police commands. We were simply making our prayers and we had our back turned,” he said. “What an unacceptable thing that they have done.”
Charkawi, a support officer at Granville Boys high school, was last year ordered to work from home after posting a video in response to the Bankstown hospital nurses footage, in which he criticised “selective outrage”.
In his video, Charkawi said the nurses’ comments were “never meant to be literal or intended to be a threat to patient care” and criticised people who had spoken out about them but remained silent on Israel’s actions.
The NSW Greens MLC Abigail Boyd said she was punched in the head and shoulder by police officers, and then saw Muslim men who were on their knees praying being dragged away by police.
“[Police] then went in and grabbed those who were praying – you can’t get anything more peaceful than prayer – picking them up and just throwing them on the ground again.
“People were just treated so incredibly poorly. That is not social cohesion. This was a peaceful protest, standing for people who were protesting a genocide on the other side of the world, but had made it explicit that we were inclusive of Jewish people. We are against antisemitism.”
Muslim groups urge police to apologise
At least 38 Muslim and legal organisations across Australia have demanded the resignation of the NSW police commissioner, Mal Lanyon, with the group saying his “leadership bears responsibility for a policing culture in which such conduct was permitted to occur”. Lanyon has spent nearly 40 years in the NSW police force and has been commissioner for five months.
The group said the NSW premier, Chris Minns, should apologise for the police “abuse of power”.
The coalition of Muslim organisations said the use of force against worshippers during a lawful and peaceful protest was unacceptable.
“Police officers knowingly intervened in a moment of religious observance, forcibly interrupted prayer and used physical force against individuals who posed no threat to public safety. Some worshippers were dragged away and thrown to the ground,” the group said in a statement.
“This was an abuse of power and a serious failure of judgment.”
The group argued no other faith community would be expected to accept sacred practices being forcibly disrupted by police.
“Muslims should not be held to a different standard, nor should our religious expression be treated as a problem to be managed or suppressed,” the statement said.
The group called for an independent inquiry into the incident, and accountability – including potentially criminal charges – for individual officers found to have acted unlawfully.
The Australian National Imams Council said it was outraged by the police’s “heavy-handed” and unprovoked physicality.
“Police are entrusted to protect the community, uphold public safety and de-escalate tensions, not to interfere with religious worship or inflame an already sensitive situation.”
Lanyon defended his officers’ actions, saying they showed “remarkable restraint”.
“Speakers were inciting the crowd to march. We had made it clear throughout the week [that a] march through the CBD was not acceptable.
“We wanted a respectful and responsible protest. That’s not what we got last night. Our police took action to disperse that protest.”
Minns said while he understood there had been criticisms of the police, officers needed to keep protesters separated from more than 7,000 people who were at an event with Herzog at Darling Harbour, mourning the Bondi beach attacks.
Police “were caught in an impossible situation,” the premier said.
“They did their job by keeping those groups separate, and we want to thank them for their service to the people of NSW.”
Minns insisted police had a “strong and cooperative relationship” with Sydney’s Muslim community.
“I want to make it clear there is no suggestion, under any circumstances, that police would have wanted to prevent people praying or get in the way of people lawfully exercising their religion.
“But context is important here, and the circumstances facing NSW police was incredibly difficult. It was, in effect, in the middle of a riot. Police have to make critical early decisions in those circumstances. It wasn’t designed to pick on or target a particular community.”
The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, raised the issue of police action against praying protesters in parliament, saying he would “allow police to do their job” in investigating. He said many in Australia “will want to know all of the circumstances around that”.
ISIS vs IDF. Selective justice and the fall of Australian law
by Andrew Brown | Feb 4, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/isis-vs-idf-selective-justice-and-the-collapse-of-australian-law/
Australians who went to fight for ISIS were prosecuted, their families vilified, while former IDF soldiers fighting for Israel walk freely among us. Andrew Brown reports on the double standards.
Australians like to believe our justice system is governed by principle, and crimes judged by what was done, not by who did them. We like a comforting story about ourselves. That justice is served, and accountability painful but even-handed. We tell it often. We believe it when it suits us.
That story collapses the moment it is tested.
After the Brereton Report, Australia demonstrated what accountability looks like when it chooses to take law seriously. Entire Australian Defence Force platoons were investigated. Whole units placed under suspicion. Soldiers interrogated repeatedly. Careers frozen. Medals questioned. Command structures dismantled. Hundreds of millions of public dollars spent. One soldier charged. Many others left suspended indefinitely, their lives stalled in legal limbo.
This pursuit of accountability was not timid or symbolic. It did not flinch at rank, reputation, or heroism. Australia went after its returning heroes, including Victoria Cross recipients, and some of the most decorated units in its military history. It did so publicly and without fear or favour.
“No medal or mythology placed anyone beyond scrutiny.”
Australia wanted the world to see that it would investigate its own forces, not just individuals but units and chains of command, even when it was humiliating and politically costly.
Soldiers going overseas
When Australians travelled to join ISIS, the response was faster and harsher. Passports cancelled. Homes raided. Surveillance expanded. Citizenship stripping powers deployed. Wives treated as accomplices. Children framed as future threats. Suspicion alone was often enough to trigger punishment. Due process became optional.
If Australians fought for Russia against Ukraine, arrests would follow. Prosecutions under foreign incursion and war crimes laws. Media outrage before the luggage carousel stopped turning. The word traitor would appear instantly.
That is the standard Australia claims to uphold.
Gaza
Now consider Gaza. What is occurring is not chaotic warfare. It is a civilian catastrophe with a measurable pattern. Credible casualty analyses based on hospital records, death registries, and independent verification show that approximately 84% of those killed are civilians and around 33% are children. Not combatants miscounted. Not teenagers caught in crossfire. Children.
By comparison, in Ukraine, children account for around 0.3% of casualties. That is a difference of more than one hundredfold.This is not incidental harm. It is demographic concentration.
The destruction follows the same logic. Entire residential districts have been levelled. Homes, schools, universities, bakeries, water infrastructure, and sewage systems have been systematically destroyed. This is not damage caused by fighting around civilians.
“It is the removal of the conditions required for civilian life to continue.”
Hospitals have been a central target. Gaza’s major medical complexes were besieged, raided, and rendered inoperable. Electricity was cut. Fuel was denied. Oxygen supplies ran out. Patients died untreated on floors. Premature infants were left in incubators without power. Medical staff were detained directly from wards and operating theatres, taken without charge, many remaining in detention months later.
This is not collateral damage. It is the dismantling of a healthcare system in real time.
Human rights atrocity
Mass detention has accompanied the physical destruction. Thousands of Palestinians have been taken without charge or access to legal counsel. Human rights organisations have documented beatings, starvation, stress positions, and sexual abuse in detention. Medical professionals and journalists were not spared. They were targeted.
Journalists have been killed at a rate unmatched in any modern conflict. Aid workers have been killed despite operating in clearly marked vehicles and facilities. Among them was Australian humanitarian Zomi Frankcom, killed during a coordinated strike on an aid convoy.
And then there is Hind Rajab.
A six-year-old girl was trapped in a car after her family was shot dead. She called emergency services. Her voice was recorded. An ambulance was dispatched to rescue her. The ambulance was destroyed. Hind was later found dead alongside the paramedics sent to save her.
There was no firefight. No exchange of fire. No ambiguity.
Doctors from Australia, the United States, and Canada who worked in Gaza later testified publicly to treating repeated waves of children with gunshot wounds consistent with sniper fire. Identical entry wounds to heads and chests. These were not anecdotes.
They were clinical observations recorded by trained professionals.
The crime scene
This is why the language of genocide is no longer rhetorical. It is legal. The International Court of Justice has found a plausible risk of genocide and ordered provisional measures. The International Criminal Court is pursuing accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity arising from Israeli actions.
What is unfolding in Gaza is not a tragedy without authorship.
It is a crime scene.
Australia has chosen silence.
That silence is no longer ignorance. At the National Press Club, senior human rights lawyer Chris Sidoti warned that Australians who served in Gaza may face criminal liability if genocide or war crimes are established. He was explicit. Genocide does not require pulling a trigger. Assistance, facilitation, or knowing contribution can be enough.
“The government did not contest the law. It did nothing.”
The government did not contest the law. It did nothing.
No Australian Federal Police task force. No examination of units or command chains. No transparency. No framework for investigating potential complicity in genocide or war crimes under Australian law.
Instead, indulgence.
An estimated 1,000 former or current Israeli Defence Force soldiers now live freely in Australia. They stroll through Caulfield, Bondi, Dover Heights, and Double Bay. They drink lattes in Sydney cafes. They enjoy suburban normality without scrutiny, while Gaza remains a ledger of rubble, amputations, mass graves, and dead children.And the indulgence does not stop at inaction. It now edges toward empowerment.
NSW Premier Chris Minns has publicly canvassed expanding armed community protection roles, including the involvement of current or former Israeli soldiers in guarding Jewish institutions in Australia. The stated aim is protection against antisemitism. That aim is legitimate. The implications are not.
Policing and the authorised use of force are public functions. They exist because weapons in civilian life require training, oversight, accountability, and law. When governments contemplate arming individuals with recent service in a foreign military now under investigation for genocide, the issue becomes immediate and domestic.
Run the test honestly.
ISIS vs IDF
If ISIS returnees sought to bear arms in public under the guise of community protection, the state would answer with handcuffs and prison, not consent. The request itself would be treated as evidence of danger.
That this proposal can be entertained for one category of foreign fighter while unthinkable for another exposes the fiction at the heart of Australia’s claim to equal justice. The law has not changed. Only who it is prepared to protect has.
“This is not neutrality. It’s policy.”
Australia destroyed careers investigating its own soldiers. It went after its most decorated units without fear or favour. It acted ruthlessly against ISIS recruits. It would move instantly if Australians fought for Russia.
When Australians fight in Gaza under the Israeli flag, amid credible allegations of genocide now before international courts, the state looks away.
“That is not restraint, but complicity.”
History will remember this as the moment Australia blinded its own law, allowing returning IDF soldiers to pass unexamined and exposing fairness before the law as a deliberate lie.
Precarious Invitations: Israel’s President Isaac Herzog’s Visit to Australia
4 February 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark AIM Extra, https://theaimn.net/precarious-invitations-israels-president-isaac-herzogs-visit-to-australia/
Things are getting rather ropey on the invitation of Israeli President Isaac Herzog to visit Australia on February 8. It came amidst the anguish following the Bondi Beach attacks of December 14, 2025 on attendees of a Hanukkah event by two gunmen, leaving 15 dead. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese obviously thought it a sensible measure at the time. For months, his government has been snarled at by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for providing succour to antisemitism. The wretched thesis: that Australia’s recognition of a Palestinian State at September’s UN General Assembly meeting somehow stirred it.
Albanese had thought dealing with the gargoyle of antisemitism and engendering good will could be achieved by inviting Herzog. “We need to build social cohesion in this country,” he insists. The Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) also thought the invitation sound, sending “a powerful message of solidarity and support… following the tragic events at Bondi and the surge of antisemitism across the country.”These claims of fluffy approval ignore the serious and blindingly obvious prospect that legal grounds might arise regarding Herzog’s visit, not to mention the public protest and agitation it will cause. Australia, being a party both to the UN Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute which establishes the International Criminal Court, must always be wary about the injunctions of membership. A determined opposition, armed with legal arguments and indignation, has shown itself keen on foiling the visit.
On January 30, the Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF), the Jewish Council of Australia, and the Australian National Imams Council (ANIC), announced that a joint legal complaint to have Herzog arrested or barred from entering Australia had been sent to the Australian Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke and the Australian Federal Police (AFP). As Netanyahu would be unlikely to visit Australia without discomfort, given an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court, the complaint asserted that as “the Prime Minister of Israel is not permitted to visit Australia, the President should not be allowed to act as his surrogate.”
The complaint implores the Australian authorities to do any of three things: refuse or cancel any visa held by Herzog under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which covers character and public interest grounds; refer him to the AFP for investigation under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (Cth) and Australian hate crime legislation; and ensure Australia’s compliance with international obligations to investigate and prosecute who enter the country who are reasonably suspected of committing serious international crimes.
In their body of evidence, the group cites the President’s “Entire Nation” declaration of October 2023 claiming that no civilians in Gaza were “uninvolved” in that month’s attack on Israel by Hamas; the grotesque denials of famine in August 2025, suggesting that images of chronic starvation featuring Palestinian children had been “staged”; and the broader endorsement of military operations entailing the commission of war crimes. Reference in the complaint is made to a December 2023 visit by Herzog to the Nahal Oz military base where he provided encouragement to troops two days before their “wanton destruction” and “flattening” of the town of Khuza’a in Khan Yunis.
The complaint also rejects any application of Head of State immunity, citing the Nuremberg Principles and international law as removing that shield when it comes to the commission of such grave offences as genocide and war crimes.
The complaint is certainly accurate in drawing attention to Herzog’s incitements to collectively punish an apparently complicit populace in Gaza. South Africa’s filing of proceedings against Israel in the International Court of Justice alleging acts of genocide in Gaza cites his remarks from October 12, 2023: “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true… and we will fight until we break their backbone.” The submission also notes a social media post by Herzog showing him addressing reservists and writing messages on bombs destined to be used on Palestinians.
The September 2025 analysis by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, which found Israel’s conduct in Gaza after October 7, 2023 to be genocidal in nature, also references Herzog’s October 12, 2023 remark, further adding those words of blame that Gazans “could have risen up.” In the Commission’s view, the President had damned Palestinians to equal responsibility for the attacks on Israel on October 7 that year. Such a statement, along with those of similar kidney made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, constituted “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” under the Genocide Convention.
AFP Commissioner Krissy Barrett has also been reminded in a submission by the Australian Centre for International Justice, along with two Palestinian non-government human rights organisations, the West Bank-based Al-Haq and the Gaza-based Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, that Australia has obligations to investigate “credible allegations of serious international crimes” and has domestic laws permitting “the initiation of an investigation” into their commission. Even if immunity was enlivened for the Israeli President, it would not prevent the AFP “from undertaking preliminary investigative steps, including seeking a voluntary interview with Herzog upon his arrival to Australia.”
The AFP states that Division 268 of the Criminal Code Act grants the Commonwealth “jurisdiction to investigate core international crimes that occur offshore. However, it is not usually practical for the AFP to do so.” With something of a shrug, the AFP would rather that the country where such alleged offences had taken place pursue the matter. (What a rosy convenience that would be.) Investigating such crimes would also pose problems, among them evidentiary matters regarding location, identifying and locating witnesses, the occurrence of crimes in an ongoing conflict, the unwillingness of foreign governments to assist.
Australian lawmakers have also shown themselves reluctant to block the visit. The waters were tested in an attempt by the Greens Senator David Shoebridge on February 3 to suspend standing orders to move a motion seeking the government’s rescinding of Herzog’s invitation. “When someone is accused by the United Nations of inciting genocide, you don’t invite them for tea, you don’t give them a platform, and you certainly don’t welcome them as a guest of honour.”
His effort was thwarted by a large Senate majority. At this point, Herzog’s five-day visit, with all its combustible precariousness and legal freight, is scheduled to take place. A citizen’s arrest might be in order.
Beware these dangerous writers in the world of journalism
Noel Wauchope, 3 Feb 26
I had in mind to look at Australia’s dangerous writers, in no particular hurry. But that’s changed. You see, the Australian Prime Minister, in his wisdom, decided to invite Isaac Herzog, the President of our great ally, Israel, on a state visit to Australia. After all, Herzog is not the real leader, not the Prime Minister of Israel. A United Nations commission of inquiry found Israel guilty of genocide. The International Criminal Court found Prime Minister Netanyahu guilty of war crimes. But even if you do take any notice of those radical organisations, probably President Isaac Herzog didn’t know anything about the alleged atrocities in Gaza.
Fortunately, the Australian press takes a moderate view of all this. P.M. Albanese’s invitation to Herzog is intended to unite Australians, and give comfort after the massacre of Jews at Bondi Beach. (What? The invitation was sent long before that massacre? There is no need to bring logic into this.)
Note .I wrote that the invitation had come before the Bondi massacre, and I was wrong in this. Nevertheless, it’s a tragic truth that the Bondi massacre has allowed the media to obscure the fact that the Australian government has been under continual pressure from the Zionist lobby.
In the circumstances, it’s important to avoid a trouble-making bunch of Australian writers who are likely to stir up criticism of Isaac Herzog, and let’s all be friends.
Now, you already know that Australia’s Cailtin Johnstone is an evil witch (and terribly rude, too). But there are plenty of other equally dangerous writers. I know, because even some of my family and friends have warned me about them, as have other very “reputable” people. There are so many evil ones like her. I don’t know where to begin.
A new threat is Michael West, and his string of collaborators:
Australians have been pretty well protected. The Adelaide Festival Board cancelled Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah‘s talk, planned for the Adelaide Writers Festival in March. Quite rightly and properly, as Dr Abdel-Fattah, though born in Australia, is of Palestinian heritage, and her books take an extremely pro-Muslim view, and advocate for Palestinian rights and identity.
Indeed, our government is pretty good at saving us from evil writers. And dedicated pressure groups can have a good influence on our media. So, for example, we have been protected from the wicked influence of Chris Hedges. The chief executive of Australia’s National Press Club, Maurice Reilly, cancelled Hedges’ scheduled talk on the Betrayal of Palestinian Journalists. The U.S. Press Club banned him, too. All very proper, as Hedges was insulting our friends, the Israeli government. But that’s not all. Chris Hedges is just so gloomy about everything – especially corporate coup, death of the liberal class, and the rise of fascism. We really should not tolerate such extreme bias and negativity. Why, Hedges even condemns the happiness industries. He’s so awful – hates everything that Western culture holds dear.
Rex Patrick is another Australian writer to be avoided, obviously unpatriotic as he trashes the idea of AUKUS submarines.
Australia’s boast is that “we are young and free”? Well, not exactly free, when it comes to press freedom, as we have no constitutional or explicit legal protection for press freedom. But that’s all to the good – keeping us focussed on our most respected traditional interests – sport, entertainment, celebrities, and food.On the international scene, there’s a spate of writing by extremists.You know straight away to avoid people like Jeffrey Sachs, with his wide-ranging way out views. Ralph Nader – a long time pest, obstructing progress. Eva Bartlett is particularly suspect, as she criticises both Israel and Ukraine. Juan Cole has extremist views on the Middle East. Craig Mokhiber is a complete ratbag, waffling on about human rights. Les Leopold is a ratbag on economics and workers’ rights. Koohan Paik-Mander is exceptionally dangerous, too, being Asian, and female.
Look, there’s lots more of them. I’ve barely scraped the surface. But my advice to you (especially right now, with the imminent arrival of our friend Isaac Herzog), is to be calm, be complacent, stick to the mainstream media, and avoid those awful journalists whose only aim is to upset you.
Let’s stop pretending AUKUS makes us safer
Margaret Beavis, February 2, 2026 —https://www.theage.com.au/national/let-s-stop-pretending-aukus-makes-us-safer-20260202-p5nysl.html
A couple of weeks ago, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney highlighted the need for
“naming reality”. Accordingly, we have to “name” the wishful thinking that is AUKUS. While it
is clear Australia needs a credible submarine capability, the AUKUS plan is neither credible
nor capable of meeting Australia’s defence needs. The Australian Defence Force has
correctly described this as a high-risk project – with no Plan B.
It is highly questionable whether a few nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) will be effective
in defending Australia: too big for our northern waters, too few, difficult to man, unreliable
and potentially obsolete by 2050, if not before. But not to worry – they will probably never
come.
It is very unlikely, under the AUKUS Pillar I agreement, that the US will sell us three to five
Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines, given US legislation, ongoing US shipyard
sustainment difficulties and major build delays.
The US legislation is very clear. The AUKUS Submarine Transfer Authorization Act, Code
10431, says that the transfer of Virginia-class submarines to Australia “will not degrade the
United States undersea capabilities”.
To meet its own needs, the US must build two Virginia-class SSNs per year. To supply
Australia, it must build at a rate of 2.33 annually; the current rate is 1.13 and has proved very
resistant to increasing, despite major increases in funding (by $US9 billion since 2018).
Australia’s $US3.3 billion contribution is not enough. In addition, the US is now prioritising
construction of the much larger Columbia submarines, making increased production rates of
Virginia-class submarines even less likely.
Operational availability is also a problem, though seldom mentioned. Rear Admiral Jonathan
Rucker, the program executive officer for Attack submarines, noted that with the “Virginia-
class of Attack submarines suffering from maintenance woes and low operational availability,
the US Navy is working to ensure its next Attack submarine is easier to sustain”. This makes
it even less likely the US can spare submarines. Even if they do – how available will they
be? Indeed, during a conflict, would we even get spare parts if US subs needed them too?
How many times does Australia need to be told this a very long shot? Last year, the US
Navy’s Chief of Operations Admiral Daryl Caudle testified that there are “no magic beans” to
boosting the US’ shipbuilding capacity. UK submarine building is even more behind, but that
is another story.
Elbridge Colby, the US under-secretary of defence for policy, said in 2024 that “it would be
crazy for the United States to give away its single most important asset for a conflict with
China over Taiwan when it doesn’t have enough already … money is not the only issue – it’s
also time, limits on our workforce, so both sides of this vitally important alliance need to look
reality in the face.”
From our partners
Late last year, his Pentagon review of AUKUS was reportedly significantly modified by the
president’s office before Trump declared AUKUS was “full steam ahead”.
The US Congressional Research Service in October 2024 proposed that Australia did not
receive any US SSNs but focused on other defence capabilities. It noted that “there is little
indication that, prior to announcing the AUKUS Pillar I project … an analysis of alternatives
or equivalent rigorous comparative analysis was conducted to examine whether Pillar I
would be a more cost-effective way to spend defence resources”.
So why is the US keen to go ahead with this? The benefits for it are obvious. Much more
important than the (non-refundable) billions of dollars is having a new base at Garden Island
and a new maintenance shipyard at Henderson in WA. Even better, the AUKUS agreement
locks us into US war-fighting plans for the next 40 years. Decisions when Australia goes to
war will be made in DC, not in Canberra.
Current US missile and warhead developments mean Virginia-class subs (in reality US-
operated subs) will probably carry nuclear missiles by the early 2030s. The initial assurance
that they would not be nuclear-armed has vanished, just as the initial assurance we would
not end up with the weapons-grade nuclear waste has vanished.
Fuel for these subs requires serious enrichment technology, significantly weakening nuclear
non-proliferation norms. Japan, South Korea, Iran and Turkey are now interested in this
technology. Also, which lucky community will host the high-level nuclear waste?
‘High probability of failure’: Former top official’s dire AUKUS warning
By hosting these submarines (and nuclear-capable B-52 bombers in the Northern Territory),
we not only lose sovereignty but also become a target ourselves. These submarines are too
big to defend Australia’s northern waters, and there will be too few of them – if any – toprovide meaningful defence. Advances in underwater detection technology will probably render them obsolete by 2050, if not before.
Finally, the massive cost of these submarines will cannibalise spending on other more
effective defence weaponry. It will also limit funds available for health, education and other
critical social needs. Austerity in the UK has severely damaged the NHS, once a source of
national pride. Don’t think it can’t happen here.
AUKUS Pillar II and the UK submarines are also extremely problematic, but that needs
another article.
We must have a public independent review of AUKUS. We need to consider alternatives that
are more cost-effective and in our national interest. Sovereignty matters.
Defence secrecy is no excuse, and wishful thinking is very poor strategy. It is time to stop
gaslighting the public.
Dr Margaret Beavis is the vice president of the Medical Association for Prevention of
War.
1 This Month
5 March -Online – Reversing nuclearization:
From nuclear weapons in Belarus and NATO host countries to a European-Nuclear-Weapon Free Zone
11am-12:30pm Eastern Time USA / 5pm-6:30pm CET
of the week – Advocating for a
nuclear free beach – https://www.samuellawrencefoundation.org/
The Samuel Lawrence Foundation advocates for a Nuclear Waste Free Beach at San Onofre, join us and take action!
10 March A LIVE WEBINAR THE REAL EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR POWER
What the Industry Isn’t Telling Us
1:00 PM Mountain, 2 pm Central, 3 pm Eastern. Live on the Keepers of the Water Facebook page
18 March Webinar @ 1 PM EST: An Assessment of SMR Projects: The Case of Canada
register for the zoom:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_o8BIIOUvQ2ONJR1nta65DQ#/registration
of the week – STOP SMALL MODULAR REACTORS IN CANADA
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- March 2026 (37)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 