Zionists v Keane, Riemer, Kostakidis. Australia’s massive test cases for free speech.
by Michael West | Oct 12, 2025, https://michaelwest.com.au/zionists-v-keane-riemer-kostakidis-australias-massive-test-cases-for-free-speech/?fbclid=IwY2xjawNZg3NleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFHazM4NnFGVW9VUEZ0S0xyAR7ySwD_jNr3_vorgPkT2cUqNmreGCAefd2xOE-r0WDxjuF9f0r3ZKf9jMf50A_aem_zu59pfZ3k4MYHUAsDOlS-Q
The Zionist lawsuit against Sydney Uni academics John Keane and Nick Riemer is – as is the suit against Mary Kostakidis – a mighty test case for free speech in Australia. Michael West reports.
Criticising Zionism and the state of Israel is *not* antisemitic. That is the guts of the defence in the case brought against two Sydney University academics in the Federal Court, which kicks off on Monday, 13 October.
This is a significant case for free speech in Australia. Critical even. The lawsuits, brought under Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act against academics Professor John Keane and Nick Riemer, are, in the opinion of this observer, lawfare; an attempt, as is the messy action against journalist Mary Kostakidis, to muzzle criticism of Israel and its atrocities against the Palestinians.
A mountain of costs
The interlocutory judgment in the Kostakidis trial foreshadows a long and difficult trial whose sheer costs may make it more of a contest of money than justice. More on this later.
The claim against Keane and Riemer is a similar story. It seeks to litigate the events and the myths of the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023. And if the Judge rules that the examination of the events of October 7 is admissible, the case would have a global impact.
Clause 26 is unlikely to be true for a start.
Israel has never held an inquiry into October 7, and apparently for good reason. Wild Israeli claims of “40 babies beheaded” and “mass rapes” have been discredited – there is no forensic evidence of Israeli rape victims – and it is not known how many of the alleged “1,200 Israelis” mentioned in the claim were killed by the IDF.
Will this be tested in Court? If so, we are in for a long and expensive case.
It has been established in Israeli media and elsewhere that the Hannibal Directive was invoked that day. Under the Hannibal Directive, the IDF was ordered to prevent “at all costs” the abduction of Israeli civilians or soldiers, possibly leading to the death of a large number of Israeli civilians and IDF personnel in the area at the time.
Pictures of the carnage from that day prove the point that small arms fire from Hamas operatives could not have possibly caused so much destruction. Instead, by Apache helicopter gunships.
This is merely one disputed clause in the statement of claim and would prove costly for an Australian court to hear.
The “affected or aggrieved persons” making the Keane claim (it is not known who is funding it) – Zionist academics from Sydney University – assert they have been hurt by pro-Palestinian posts on social media; “offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the posting”.
MWM does not doubt that their feelings have been hurt. Feelings have been hurt daily on both sides since the events of October 7 and during the ensuing American/Israeli genocide in Gaza. Yet, the question should be asked … is an expensive court case testing the infamous clause 18c clause in the Racial Discrimination Act in the public interest?
Should the aggrieved persons win the case, it will have a chilling effect on free speech in Australia. And in the Kostakidis case the stakes are arguably higher.
Mary Kostakidis
This week, Justice McDonald struck out parts of the statement of claim against Kostakidis while providing another opportunity for the applicants’ amended SOC to be amended again.
Taking to X, Mary Kostakidis tweeted that 18c was a “bad law, a lengthy and costly legal case can be brought against you by anyone who claims you are motivated by racism and are responsible for their feelings. And fair comment on a matter of public interest, and journalism, may be exceptions that can be pleaded, but that has to be proven at trial. Anyone involved in public discourse, including any journalist, must prove they are not motivated by racism.”
Proving that you are not a racist, proving intent, is a tough one. “It is not logically impossible that a particular news reporter, even when acting as a news reporter, might engage in particular acts because of people’s race or ethnic or national origin,” the Judge found. “Whether there is a basis to draw that conclusion in a particular case will depend on an assessment of the evidence in that particular case”.
Attempt to shut down genocide critics
Said Kostakidis, “The attempt to shut down criticism of a genocide is morally reprehensible and dangerous. Those trying to control the narrative will not prevail”. Her case is even more tricky than those engulfing Keane and Riemer, as the Zionist Federation of Australia has cherry-picked a lot of her social media activity for its claim, including tweets about Mossad and dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
It’s a test case for social media too, as the claim against her includes retweets, posts by other people, which may or may not be deemed to be endorsing a particular view. As she told MWM, “If I retweet Smotrich (Israel’s extremist finance minister Bezalel Smotrich) does that amount to an endorsement?”
The opening round of hearings in the Keane and Riemer cases will take place before Justice Kennett in the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney on Monday and Tuesday.
A large number of Jewish colleagues have defended Keane and Riemer’s statements. They have said the complainants ‘do not speak for us as Jewish people’, and demanded that the complaint, which they describe as vexatious, be dropped.
The University of Sydney, too, is in the crosshairs, also being sued because the plaintiffs claim the Uni has ‘vicarious liability’ for the statements of the defendants Keane and Riemer, who claim that if Palestine supporters can’t say what they have said, then criticism of Israel will be outlawed under the law.
Free speech questioned as National Press Club cancels Gaza address
By Rosemary Sorensen | 13 October 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/free-speech-questioned-as-national-press-club-cancels-gaza-address,20262
The decision to cancel Chris Hedges’ address on Gaza has raised fresh questions about the Press Club’s commitment to free speech, writes Dr Rosemary Sorensen.
FROM AN OFFICE in the heart of Canberra – where the only danger to journalists is that they have to watch their feet lest they fall over a politician passed out on the footpath – the chief executive of the National Press Club cancelled an event called ‘The Betrayal of Palestinian Journalists’, as Dr Lee Duffield wrote in IA last week.
American journalist Chris Hedges, who was expecting to deliver this speech as part of a speaking tour this month, wrote in response to the shock cancellation that NPC’s Maurice Reilly had ‘perhaps inadvertently’ underlined his point. On his Substack, ‘The Chris Hedges Report’, he quoted Reilly’s explanation, “that in the interest of balancing out our program, we will withdraw our offer”.
Hedges’ response to the claim that the cancellation was ‘in the interest of’ balance is devastating:
‘It is true that I know only one side of the picture from the seven years I spent covering Gaza. I was on the receiving end of Israeli attacks, including being bombed by its air force and fired upon by its snipers, one of whom killed a young man a few feet away from me at the Netzarim Junction. We lifted him up, each person taking hold of an arm or a leg and lumbered up the road as his body swayed like a heavy sack.’
Speaking about the more than 278 journalists killed in Gaza by Israel as well as on behalf of all those who have ‘reported a reality in Gaza that bears no resemblance to how it is portrayed by Israeli politicians, its military and many media outlets that serve as Israel’s echo chamber’, Hedges calls out Reilly’s use of the term “balance” as ‘an abandonment of the fundamental mission of journalists — to hold power accountable’.
His suggestion that ‘the corporate sponsors and wealthy donors of the Press Club’ will be pleased that the cancellation averts ‘the attacks that would come from allowing me to speak’, stirred the National Press Club’s CEO not only to refute the idea that there had been pressure ‘outside of the board, either directly or indirectly’ but also to call out Chris Hedges’ claim as ‘false’ that the ‘proposed address’ was published on the NPC website.
That refutation notwithstanding and even if, as Reilly claims, the date for Hedges’ ‘The Betrayal of Palestinian Journalists’ address was only ‘tentatively agreed’, such a backflip at such a time from an organisation that puts out its media statements under the rubric “Freedom of the Press” is ugly.
Antoinette Lattouf, talking with Jan Fran on their We Used To Be Journos podcast through Ette Media, said that while outside pressure to cancel what is considered pro-Palestinian commentary has been called out over and over during the past two years, if this was an internal decision, it was “somehow worse”:
“I would argue pre-empting criticism and attacks from said lobby groups [is] self-censoring.”
Mary Kostakidis, who saw the page announcing the Hedges event on the NPC website before it was removed, wrote to Reilly to ask if, as Hedges had written, the event was reportedly to be replaced by an address by Israeli Ambassador retired Lt. Colonel Amir Maimon. The statement in response said that ‘inference… is also false and without basis’.
Like many an organisation before them, from libraries to orchestras, writers’ festivals to hospitals, what appears to be a hasty decision by the National Press Club is, at the very least, disrespectful to the proposed speaker.
The devil is, once again, in the detail: Reilly stated the club ‘is constantly reviewing its address schedule, and when more details of the address were made available we decided to pursue other speakers on the matter’.
Does Reilly mean the matter of the betrayal of Palestinian journalists? And while the statement on their website mentions Global Spokesperson UNICEF James Elder, who will speak at the NPC on ‘Children under siege’, and Judge Navi Pillay, who will speak about ‘Women, Peace and Justice’, which other speakers are they pursuing to talk about the murdered journalists?
To say the ‘proposed address was never published on our website’, to say that Hedges’ claim it was removed is false, is casuistry. According to Kostakidis, it appeared on the website, briefly, without a booking link, which suggests publication was prepared and imminent.
Late last month the National Media Section of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance put out a statement about the ‘rise in threats, harassment and intimidation of journalists who report and comment on Gaza’, citing Antoinette Lattouf, Peter Lalor and Mary Kostakidis as examples of those who have been the target of ‘powerful lobby groups’.
The statement read:
‘We stand with our colleagues in their workplaces, in the courtrooms and in their deaths to raise our voices against the silence.’
To fob off Chris Hedges, who has seen Israeli troops shoot Palestinian children, who was in Gaza when attack jets bombed Gaza City, who has ‘stood in the gutted remains of schools as well as medical clinics and mosques and counted the bodies’, with such a statement as the one published by Maurice Reilly on the National Press Club of Australia website is unfathomable.
‘We wish Chris Hedges well on his tour of Australia’ is the final sentence of that statement.
The final sentence of Hedges’ piece is:
‘Please, have the decency to remove the word press from your club.’
Today, at the Chatham House Restaurant in the National Press Club of Australia, members may choose to dine on barramundi, duck breast or lamb shank.
In Gaza, the hungry ghosts are served dust.
For those journalists and others who find the removal of an address by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Chris Hedges from the National Press Club program distressingly disappointing, you can hear him speak in person or livestreamed at the Allan Scott Auditorium, UniSA, Adelaide, 5:30 PM – 7 PM, Saturday 18 October, delivering the Edward Said Memorial Lecture. Tickets are available via the Australian Friends of Palestine Association website.
On Tuesday 21 October, 6:30 PM – 8:30 PM, at Pitt St Uniting Church in Sydney, Chris Hedges will be joined by Randa Abdel-Fattah and Antoinette Lattouf for a public meeting titled ‘All eyes on Gaza’, tickets via Humanitix.
How overseas allies can peacefully help Americans access the truth
12 October 2025 Lachlan McKenzie, Australian Independent Media,
A call to peaceful assistance
Across social media, emails, and private messages, ordinary Americans are asking people in Australia, Canada, and beyond for one simple thing: “Please tell us the truth. We’re not getting it here.”
They’re not asking for outrage or partisan slogans.
They’re asking for verifiable information – the kind that helps citizens, not divides them.
This is a peaceful call for help.
And we can answer it, carefully, transparently, and lawfully………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://theaimn.net/how-overseas-allies-can-peacefully-help-americans-access-the-truth/
Australia Peace and Neutrality: A Path to Regional Stability
The AUKUS cost is now estimated to exceed $368 billion, committing vast amounts of public money to nuclear-powered submarines that may arrive long after regional conditions have changed. Instead of strengthening security, this approach diverts resources that could serve a public purpose and deepens dependence on U.S. technology and strategy.
13 October 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Denis Hay
Australia peace and neutrality can strengthen diplomacy, use dollar sovereignty wisely, and build stability across the Indo-Pacific region.
Introduction
For decades, Australia has followed the United States into every major military venture, from Vietnam and Iraq to AUKUS. Yet as the Indo-Pacific becomes the world’s new power centre, a quiet question is growing louder: what if Australia charted its own path to peace and neutrality?
A truly independent Australia could use its dollar sovereignty, the power of its currency-issuing government, to build peace and prosperity across the region instead of fuelling an arms race. Australia’s peace and neutrality offer a strategy for stability, regional leadership, and national integrity.
This vision of Australia peace and neutrality challenges the assumption that our security must depend on foreign powers. Australia peace and neutrality could reshape our future security choices.
From Ally to Independent Actor
The Albanese government has signed a string of defence agreements across Asia and the Pacific – with Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Indonesia, and others. Publicly, these are framed as strengthening regional security. Privately, they reflect deep anxiety about China’s rise and U.S. expectations under the AUKUS pact.
But what if Australia could keep strong regional relationships without taking sides?
Neutrality would allow Canberra to cooperate economically with China, coordinate diplomatically with ASEAN, and collaborate militarily only for defence.
Neutrality does not mean isolation; it means freedom to choose peace. Embracing Australia peace and neutrality would allow our nation to build genuine independence through cooperation, not coercion.
Endless Alliances, Endless Dependence
Australia spends more than $50 billion annually on defence, with projections showing a surge to over $100 billion by 2034, much of it tied to AUKUS and U.S. systems.
According to the SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, global military spending reached a record US$2.44 trillion in 2024, with Australia following this trend.
The AUKUS cost is now estimated to exceed $368 billion, committing vast amounts of public money to nuclear-powered submarines that may arrive long after regional conditions have changed. Instead of strengthening security, this approach diverts resources that could serve a public purpose and deepens dependence on U.S. technology and strategy.
By investing in Australia peace and neutrality, defence spending could serve constructive goals that strengthen stability and mutual respect across the region. This imbalance weakens our sovereignty.
When defence procurement is outsourced and strategic thinking is imported, national independence becomes a slogan rather than a policy.
Redirecting spending toward Australia peace and neutrality would reflect our true interests.
Risking War by Proxy
By aligning too closely with Washington’s containment strategy, Australia risks becoming a proxy in a potential U.S.–China confrontation.
The Taiwan Strait and South China Sea remain volatile, and one miscalculation could drag us into a conflict far from our shores but devastating to our trade and security.
Meanwhile, China’s influence strategy, while assertive, relies more on infrastructure investment and trade than on military projection.
Unlike the U.S., China doesn’t keep hundreds of foreign bases or seek regime change. Its primary interest is economic stability, which is essential for its own growth. Through Australia peace and neutrality, we can maintain productive trade ties with both China and the U.S. without being drawn into military rivalry.
Australia’s uncritical alignment with the U.S. narrative feeds a false dichotomy: democracy versus authoritarianism. The real contest is between militarism and mutual benefit.
Pursuing Australia peace and neutrality keeps us clear of great-power rivalry.
Adopting a Neutral Foreign Policy
Neutrality is not new, it’s just forgotten…………..
A neutral foreign policy would reorient Australia’s military to genuine defence, protecting borders, sea lanes, and cyber networks, while withdrawing from power blocs that demand loyalty over logic.
Neutrality also aligns with public opinion: the 2025 Lowy Institute Poll shows 72% of Australians fear a major war in Asia, but only 35% believe military alliances make us safer.
Neutrality, therefore, is not weakness, it’s strategic independence. Australia’s peace and neutrality would enhance our reputation as a fair-minded, responsible regional actor. Australia peace and neutrality can become a defining national identity, proof that leadership in the Indo-Pacific can come through diplomacy rather than dominance.
Investing in Peace Through Dollar Sovereignty
Here lies Australia’s hidden strength: monetary sovereignty……………………………………………………………
Regional Partnerships for Stability
The Pacific doesn’t need more weapons; it requires trust and development. The Albanese government’s Pacific Engagement Visa and renewed aid to Fiji and PNG are steps forward. Still, Australia must go further, establishing joint renewable-energy zones, shared fisheries management, and infrastructure councils led by Pacific nations themselves.
Transparency, Public Mandate, and Trust
Defence and foreign policy have long run behind closed doors. Yet democracy demands sunlight.
To ensure neutrality reflects the national will, the government should:
- Hold annual Lowy-style peace polls to gauge public sentiment.
- Publish Defence Opportunity Cost Reports showing what alternative spending could deliver.
- Require parliamentary approval for overseas military commitments.
Transparency builds trust. Australians deserve to know whether each use of public money serves peace or perpetuates conflict.
Yet, transparency must also extend to media accountability. Australia’s mainstream outlets, dominated by right-wing interests, often frame militarism as inevitable and portray dissent as unpatriotic. This narrative undermines informed debate and limits the public’s understanding of real alternatives like neutrality or public-purpose spending.
To counter this, the government could:
- Strengthen media diversity laws and limit concentrated ownership.
- Increase funding for independent and public-interest journalism, including not only the ABC and SBS but also Michael West Media, Independent Australia, Pearls and Irritations, and The Australia Institute.
- Establish a Truth in Media Commission to hold broadcasters accountable for disinformation, particularly around war narratives and economic myths.
A healthy democracy depends on an informed public, not a manipulated one………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://theaimn.net/australia-peace-and-neutrality-a-path-to-regional-stability/
Inside Australia’s covert F-35 parts pipeline to Israel
Additional leaked documents reveal that at least 68 shipments of F-35 fighter jet parts have been flown on commercial passenger planes to Israel from Australia, Declassified Australia has reported.
Michelle Fahy, Oct 12, 2025, https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/inside-australias-covert-f-35-parts?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=175860111&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Peter Cronau, co-founder of independent investigative outlet Declassified Australia, has broken another significant story detailing the ongoing secret export of F-35 parts from Australia to Israel over the past two years, with the latest shipment being sent in mid-September.
Extract from the story, which was published on 1 October:
Detailed shipping records seen by Declassified Australia show the most recent shipment of F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel left Sydney two weeks ago destined to Tel Aviv, exported in the cargo bay of a scheduled passenger flight from Sydney International Airport.
Declassified Australia has examined the details of confidential shipping records listing a total of 68 shipments of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft parts flown from Australia directly to Israel between October 2023 and September 2025.
The multiple F-35 parts and components being sent to Israel are bypassing the two main centralised distribution hubs for F-35 parts in the US and Netherlands by being sent as cargo on commercial passenger flights from Australia to Israel.
The shipping records show that the number of Joint Strike Fighter parts shipments made directly to Israel from Australia spiked immediately after the commencement of Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza on the evening of 7 October 2023, with 10 separate shipments being made from Australia to Israel in the one month of November 2023 alone.
Of the 68 documented shipments, 51 are marked with the final receiver being at Nevatim with postcode 8955000, located in Israel. This corresponds with the address of Nevatim Airbase, located in Israel’s Negev desert, and the base for the Israeli Air Force’s three F-35 squadrons.
The number of parts exported may be much higher than the 68 shipments detailed. A comparison to opaquely named items on two lists of export approvals obtained previously by Declassified Australia show at least another 24 identically named parts were shipped during the same period. This covert trade is now seen as far more extensive than as first reported in July by Declassified Australia.
—> Read the full story from Declassified Australia.
This important new evidence substantiates early reporting last year by Undue Influence
Extract from our May 2024 article, Australia and the F-35 supply chain: in lockstep with Lockheed:
The head of the F-35 joint program office, Lieutenant General Michael Schmidt, a US Air Force officer, said a year ago that the F-35 program was established with a ‘just in time’ supply chain, where parts arrive just before they’re needed and very little inventory is stockpiled. [Emphasis added.] Lt-Gen Schmidt described that situation as ‘too risky’.
In mid-December [2023], a US Congressional hearing on the F-35 program revealed that the F-35 joint program office had been moving ‘at a breakneck speed to support…Israel…by increasing spare part supply rates’. [Emphasis added.]
In his testimony to the December 12 Congressional hearing, Lieutenant General Schmidt also made clear the role of the F-35 joint program office in closely supporting Israel:
“I had the opportunity to talk with [Israel’s] Chief of Staff just yesterday… [Israel is] very satisfied with [the] performance [the] sustainment enterprise is giving them. We could learn a lot from them in terms of the quickness with which they’re turning airplanes, [plus] all of the things we’re learning ourselves with moving parts around the world in support of a conflict.” [Emphasis added.]
The evidence above and its timing make it possible that Defence’s two export permit approvals for Israel in late October may have been related to the US-led rush to organise increased supply of F-35 spare parts for Israel.
Read that full story here:
Australia and the F-35 supply chain: in lockstep with Lockheed
Michelle Fahy, May 4, 2024
Australia is one of six western countries that are complicit in the ‘genocidal erasure’ of the Palestinian people by continuing to supply Israel with arms, according to Dr Ghassan Abu-Sitta, a British-Palestinian surgeon and newly elected rector of Glasgow University.
Australian Politicians Ignore Israel’s Brutality Against Our Citizens
by Paul Gregoire, 10 Oct 2025, https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/australian-politicians-ignore-israels-brutality-against-our-citizens/?fbclid=IwY2xjawNYYbpleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFvZW56NldIYVltV0JSQ1pBAR7k_Ehv4MPM4mBZcl8Ys4k5ckUYvmGHNzne6Ki56oAJjwRA-5TC1-qnzNMnJw_aem_5XDTJx0Kt9Abixs7ELefHA
The morning of Friday, 10 October 2025 saw the Australian Global Sumud Flotilla participants arrive back in our nation, after attempting to breach the Gaza blockade and then being illegally apprehended by Israel. A sizable crowd gathered on Gadigal land at Sydney Airport to welcome them back. However, another Australian flotilla participant has been in Israeli custody and again Australia’s top ministers are silent.
The Global Sumud Flotilla was part an ongoing campaign to breach the 18-year-long goods blockade on Gaza. Six Australians were taken into custody by Israel in international waters last week, amongst over 400 foreign nations, and they were then brutalised and mistreated in prison, while Australian woman Madeline Habib, a participant in a second flotilla, is likely in the hands of Tel Aviv now.
The participants themselves, as well as publics across the planet, have been shocked by the brutalisation and intimidation Israeli forces have subjected the more than 400 illegally detained foreign nationals to. And what’s resulted in equal dismay is the fact that our PM and foreign minister have failed to raise issue over the kidnapping of their fellow citizens, including the plight of Habib.
After focusing on the six Australians in Israeli custody that federal Labor publicly ignored, while the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade sought to provide them with consular assistance, the mainstream media has failed to raise the alarm over Habib’s detention, even though the testimonies arising from the Sumud Flotilla mean she’s likely being abused by an allied nation as well.
And as Israel has been dealing with a further 145 foreign nationals it intercepted in international waters on Wednesday 8 September 2025, as part of another Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) mission, what has been revealed to Australians is not only will our politicians look the other way on a genocide, but they’ll do the same if Israel gets the chance to brutalise any of our constiuency.
Shameful lack of support
“The Australian government is absolutely shameful in our extraction,” said Australian Global Sumud Flotilla participant Julie Lamont, speaking to the ABC from Jordan on Wednesday, after being released from Israel’s notorious Ktzi’ot prison. “It did not really support us at all. We were the last people out of 50 nationalities. We were left their probably because it was October 7.”
In response to an ABC question as to whether our government arranged the flight out of Israel to the Jordanian capital of Amman, Lamont said, “No. We were facilitated by other governments not the Australian government. And now we are here trying to find a way to come back to Australia, and we really are upset that the Australian government have been so shameful in support of their citizens.”
Lamont said Italy had risen to support flotilla participants, whereas her government hadn’t. The documentary filmmaker added that she’d thought they might be detained for months, while fellow local participant Surya McEwen was reportedly singled out for extra rough treatment by the Israeli military, which included beatings, dislocating his arm and slamming his head into a concrete floor.
Lamont and the other Australians were released by Israel on Wednesday. They were part of the final one-third of participants still detained in Ktzi’ot prison. The fact that the Australian government was less responsive to its own nationals would have compounded the hard time they were receiving at the hands of a rogue nation that’s developed diplomatic tensions with ours over recent months.
A spokesperson for foreign minister Penny Wong released a statement on Wednesday that suggested DFAT officials were working hard to assist detained Australians. The spokesperson for the minister said officials conducted welfare checks at the prison and liaised with Israeli officials to obtain their release. However, the statement failed to explain why Israel was illegally detaining these people.
Israeli immunity
The disturbing fact that Australia’s top ministers don’t appear to consider there is any reason to waste their breath while citizens who’d risked their lives to feed a group of people being purposefully starved to death are being illegally imprisoned and subjected to harsh conditions has been coupled by the reacquaintance with the realisation that Israel can harm foreign nationals with impunity.
The flotilla apprehended this week with Habib was the fourth such attempt to breach the Gaza blockade since June. Participants are aware they are risking their lives, because the six boats making up a 2010 FFC flotilla were boarded by Israeli soldiers in international waters, and then nine foreign nationals were shot dead on sight, with a tenth dying later in a coma.
Irish comedian Tadhg Hickey was also part of last week’s Global Sumud Flotilla. Following his release, Hickey told a reporter that he had considered that if he ended up in an Israeli prison, he wouldn’t be subjected to the levels of brutality and deprivation that he was subjected to at the hands of the Israeli Defence Forces, due to the fact that he is a westerner and a white person.
To face the level of sadism and inhumanity that they displayed was really quite shocking,” Hickey explained. “I mean in the five to six days that we were incarcerated, no access to doctors, no access to medicine, no contact with the outside world” and “no lawyers”. He then explained that one of his fellow participants, a 75-year-old, was deprived of his insulin, which could have killed him.
“In my opinion, they were very happy to let him die,” continued Hickey. “It’s not even a patch of what Palestinians are going through. That was on my mind the whole time. I was thinking, ‘If they’re treating me like this, with the passport I have and the privilege I have, imagine what they are doing to Palestinians in prison, many of whom are children.”
A dereliction of duty
The Gaza Freedom Flotilla Instagram page reported on Friday that the participants in the latest flotilla have begun appearing before an Israeli court. Several participants had already been deported. The detainees were also reporting that they had too been subjected to punishing treatment at the hands of the Israeli military, although there was no specific word on Australian citizen Habib.
A large sector of the Australian public that had been aware that foreign nationals would be subjected to human rights violations at the hands of the Israeli state have been given a quick starter course on how there is one nation on the planet that is provided such impunity that it can violate and breach international laws and standards in a completely unbridled manner.
The other lesson Australia learnt is that while Israel might illegally detain and brutalise Australians, this won’t be an issue officially addressed because it is permissible. And this week was really a confirmation after Israel killed Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom and six others last year and all the foreign minister could do to respond was produce a declaration on the protection of aid workers.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 