Antinuclear

The Distraction of Selective Justice

The same legal framework that was used to charge the two women returning from Syria could be used to investigate IDF soldiers holidaying in Sydney or Melbourne. Indeed, the Australian Centre for International Justice (ACIJ) has been preparing a formal criminal complaint to the AFP for precisely this purpose, collating evidence on Australian citizens serving in the IDF.

Legal groups have identified Australian dual‑nationals who have fought for, or are still serving with, the IDF.

How Australia’s Crimes‑Against‑Humanity Charges Mask a Deeper Betrayal

9 May 2026 Dr Andrew Klein,  https://theaimn.net/the-distraction-of-selective-justice/

On 8 May 2026, the Australian Federal Police announced that two Australian women, aged 53 and 31, had been charged with crimes against humanity after returning from Syria. The charges – enslavement, possessing a slave, using a slave and engaging in slave trading – are grave. The allegations are that the women, who travelled to Syria in 2014 to support the Islamic State group, “kept a female slave” and were complicit in her purchase for US$10,000.

The arrests were swift. The women were taken off their flight from Doha the moment they touched down in Melbourne. Police had been planning their prosecution for nearly a decade. Counter‑terrorism investigators described the case as a “very serious allegation” and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke accused the women of making “a horrific choice to join a dangerous terrorist organisation.”

On the same day, the government said nothing about another group of travellers: Israeli Defence Force soldiers arriving in Australia on holiday visas

I. The Swift Sword for Some

The contrast could not be starker.

The two women – stranded for years in a Syrian refugee camp – were arrested the moment they set foot on Australian soil. Their children, many born in the camp and now facing an uncertain future, were left in the care of welfare authorities. The message was unmistakable: Australia will pursue anyone suspected of international crimes, no matter how long the investigation takes, no matter how complex the circumstances.

That is not, in itself, objectionable. Crimes against humanity must be prosecuted. But the government’s selective enthusiasm demands scrutiny.

II. Open Arms for Others

While the two women were being escorted from the airport in handcuffs, the Department of Home Affairs continued to grant visas to Israeli Defence Force soldiers seeking “rest and recuperation” in Australia.

As one activist noted:

“The Australian government is currently granting visas to IDF soldiers so they can recuperate and relax after months of levelling Gaza. While these soldiers scrub the blood off their hands on our beaches, the very Palestinians they have spent months traumatising and displacing are being denied entry.”

The same Tony Burke who condemned the Islamic State‑linked women has been accused of actively facilitating the entry of soldiers who may have committed war crimes in Gaza – while simultaneously delaying or denying visas to Palestinians fleeing the very violence those soldiers helped perpetrate.

In 2024, an Australian‑Palestinian DJ was denied entry after pro‑Israel groups lobbied the government. Burke simply “didn’t approve or deny it on time. He just left it.”

This is not a conspiracy. It is a pattern.

III. The Legal Reality: Australia Has Jurisdiction

Under Division 268 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, Australia has universal jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The Australian Federal Police have the power to investigate these offences when a suspect is on Australian soil – regardless of their nationality or where the crime was committed.

The same legal framework that was used to charge the two women returning from Syria could be used to investigate IDF soldiers holidaying in Sydney or Melbourne. Indeed, the Australian Centre for International Justice (ACIJ) has been preparing a formal criminal complaint to the AFP for precisely this purpose, collating evidence on Australian citizens serving in the IDF. Legal groups have identified Australian dual‑nationals who have fought for, or are still serving with, the IDF.

Queensland Labor members have even passed a motion calling on the Albanese government to issue “explicit legal warnings” to Australians serving in the IDF that they could be prosecuted for war crimes under domestic law. Yet the federal government has done nothing.

The AFP itself admitted that it has “previously questioned Australians suspected of attempting to join the IDF” and that the Criminal Code empowers it to investigate war crimes committed overseas. But questioning is not arresting. And arresting is not charging.

IV. The Distraction: Why This Matters

The Albanese government is not ignorant of the double standard. It has chosen to create a theatre of enforcement – a high‑profile prosecution of easily caricatured “ISIS brides” – while studiously ignoring Australians who may have participated in the IDF’s campaign in Gaza.

The effect is twofold:

1. It reassures the pro‑Israel lobby that the government will never subject its allies to the same scrutiny it applies to Islamist militants.
2. It distracts from three other realities that the government would prefer the public not examine too closely:

• • 
    The cost‑of‑living crisis (inflation at 4.6%, fuel at $2.46/L, milk up 20c/L).
  • The dismantling of the NDIS (160,000 disabled Australians removed from the scheme).
  • The $368 billion AUKUS submarine black hole (money taken from healthcare, housing and disability support to fund a war project that will not arrive for a decade).

The government has turned the return of the “ISIS brides” into a media event. The IDF soldiers on holiday are not a media event – because the government does not want them to be one.

V. The Prime Minister’s Silence

Anthony Albanose has not been silent on Israel. He demanded “accountability including any appropriate criminal charges” over the killing of Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom by an Israeli drone strike. He has even “pressed” Israeli President Isaac Herzog on the matter.

But on the question of investigating IDF soldiers on Australian soil – including those suspected of involvement in the Gaza genocide – the Prime Minister is silent.

When asked about the ICC arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, his Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade issued a carefully worded statement reaffirming “respect” for the ICC but carefully avoiding any commitment to enforce them on Australian soil.

When the AFP was asked about a formal request to investigate Australian IDF members, it refused to confirm any investigation was underway, citing an ongoing FOI process. The result is a black hole of accountability.

VI. The Damage: Justice Perceived as Partisan

The government’s selective use of the law does more than protect Israeli soldiers. It undermines faith in the legal system itself.

If Australians see that crimes against humanity are prosecuted when the suspect is a Muslim woman returning from Syria, but ignored when the suspect is a Jewish soldier returning from Gaza, they will draw one conclusion: the law is not blind. It is political.

That conclusion is corrosive. It breeds cynicism. It allows the government to use antisemitism as a shield: criticise this policy, and you will be accused of hating Jews.

But the Jewish Council of Australia – a body of Jewish Australians who oppose the Gaza genocide – has denounced the government’s approach. Real antisemitism is not the same as criticising Israeli policy. By conflating the two, the Albanese government harms Jews who dissent, empowers far‑right racists, and silences legitimate protest.

VII. The Pattern: Extraction and Distraction

This double standard is not an anomaly. It is the same logic that underpins:

• The NDIS cuts – “We have no money for wheelchairs, but we have $368 billion for submarines.”
• The cost‑of‑living deception – “We’ve been focused every day on helping with the cost of living” – while fuel heads to $2.46/L and families spend $250 a week on groceries.
• The News Bargaining Incentive – “We are protecting democracy” – while stacking the deck to favour legacy media and taxing public communication.

Extract from the vulnerable. Distract the rest. That is the government’s playbook. The “ISIS brides” prosecution is not justice – it is stage management.

VIII. What Is to Be Done

We cannot expect the government to change course. It has shown no interest in applying the law equally.

What we can do:

1. Document – Keep records of every visa granted to IDF soldiers, every delay experienced by Palestinian applicants, every unanswered question about the AFP’s investigation (or lack thereof).
2. Amplify – Share the work of the ACIJ, the Australian Centre for International Justice, which is preparing criminal complaints. Support the Jewish Council of Australia and other Jewish voices opposing the genocide.
3. Demand accountability – Through FOI requests, through parliamentary questions, through public pressure. The government may ignore us, but the record will remain.
4. Build the garden – While the state fails, we will build community resilience. Independent media, mutual aid, local food, local care. The extractive state cannot survive if we stop feeding it.

Conclusion

Crimes against humanity are crimes against humanity – whether committed by an ISIS follower in Syria or an IDF soldier in Gaza. The Australian government has the legal power to investigate both. It has chosen to investigate only one.

The “ISIS brides” case is not the problem. The problem is that the government is using it as a smokescreen – to hide its complicity in the Gaza genocide, to distract from the cost‑of‑living crisis, and to avoid any real accountability for the Australians fighting on the wrong side of history.

We are not fooled. We see the pattern. And we will not stop documenting it.

May 11, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment