Our Leaders Couldn’t Fix Our Problems If They Wanted To (And They Don’t Want To)
Caitlin Johnstone, Feb 11, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/our-leaders-couldnt-fix-our-problems?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=187582757&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Our leaders are not going to fix the worst problems in our world. They couldn’t if they wanted to. And they don’t want to.
Our leaders are not wise or insightful. They’re not even particularly intelligent. Our society is led by plutocrats who only know how to make more money, by unelected empire managers who only know how to dominate and control, and by elected politicians who only know how to say the right words and make the right bargains in order to get themselves elected.
These people are not capable of curing our civilization of its dysfunction. They don’t have the necessary skills or attributes. Even if they weren’t a bunch of evil sociopaths who are only in the positions they’re in because of their willingness to collaborate with the agendas of oligarchy, war, militarism, imperialism, ecocide, exploitation, oppression and planetary domination, they don’t even have the personal characteristics necessary to do things like end poverty, rescue our biosphere, bring about world peace or give rise to human thriving. They’d have no idea where to star
I say this because as I watch Americans and Australians falling all over themselves to justify the recent police brutality in our respective nations, I am struck by how many people still believe our society is run by leaders who more or less know what they are doing and will guide us to more or less where we need to be. They view their government as a wise and beneficent father who knows what’s best for all of us, and they believe anyone who disagrees with Daddy is being naughty.
That’s really all it is. They’ll make up all sorts of justifications and excuses, but ultimately their police apologia arises from an infantile worldview which believes the authorities are right for no other reason than because they are in authority. They begin with their tongue on the boot of power, and then they make up reasons for why their tongue needs to be there.
That’s the worldview that gets a lot of people through their day. Believing our society is basically just and decent, and that we don’t need to concern ourselves with the world’s problems because we’ve got highly qualified leaders working hard at fixing them.
Believing our society is just and decent allows one to relax under the assumption that they deserve all the comforts they have in life and that the system will never turn against them. If someone is killed by police, or is impoverished or imprisoned or homeless, then it’s because they did something wrong and immoral, and all you need to do to avoid the same fate is follow the rules and make ethical choices. Under a just and decent system, good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people, so all you need to do is be good and you’ll be fine, and if things are going badly for you it’s because you deserve it.
Believing we’ve got highly qualified leaders working on our world’s problems allows one to relax under the assumption that everything’s taken care of. There’s no need to concern ourselves with all the information which tells us we’re plunging deeper and deeper into tyrannical dystopia on a collision course with environmental catastrophe under a globe-spanning empire that is fueled by human blood, because Daddy’s got it all taken care of.
Really these are just juvenile fairy tales designed to help us psychologically compartmentalize away from uncomfortable realities; no grown adult has any business believing them. But a lot of people would do anything to avoid internal discomfort. Entire psychological universes are constructed around the unconscious agenda of not feeling unpleasant feelings.
Daddy’s not gonna save us, kiddos. Daddy’s a serial killer with dead bodies in the attic, and many important parts of his brain are missing. Our problems aren’t going to get fixed until we get rid of Daddy. Getting rid of Daddy means forcibly getting rid of the entire system under which we live and replacing it with something that serves the interests of ordinary human beings.
Bootlickers hate revolutionary politics, because it is diametrically opposed to their infantile worldview of paternalistic government deities. But things aren’t going to get better until we find a way to get the steering wheel of our world out of the hands of the people who are currently in charge. Until then, everything’s just going to keep getting worse.
The Siege Within: How Clarity Died in the Aftermath of Bondi
13 Feb 26, https://urbanwronski.com/2026/02/11/the-siege-within-how-clarity-died-in-the-aftermath-of-bondi/
The summer evening of December 14, 2025, began in the soft, amber glow of Hanukkah candles at Archer Park. It ended in the staccato rattle of rifle fire and the scent of sea spray mixed with shotgun powder. Fifteen lives were extinguished by Sajid and Naveed Akram; a night that exposed not only the fragility of security, but the deeper frailty of Australia’s political imagination.
In the wake of that horror, the Albanese and Minns governments promised resolve. What they delivered instead was the familiar choreography of risk-aversion: the committees, the taskforces, the talking-points, and finally, a version of the old dingo fence. What began as an act of collective grief has metastasised into a tinpot tyranny, a prison guard or police patrol’s vision of order.
From Public Grief to Private Fear
By February, that perimeter has hardened into a siege. Sydney’s once open streets have become the staging ground of a security politics that no one voted for. The images from Town Hall; men dragged from prayer mats, Greens MP Abigail Boyd coughing through pepper spray—belong to a country that has quietly rewritten its own story of tolerance. A pluralist democracy does not kneel beneath its police lines for long without losing something essential.
The truth is simpler and harder: we have allowed fear, dressed in the high-vis vest of “public order,” to set the terms of our morality, proscribe our speech, define the living sinews of our commonwealth.
The Invisible, Myopic Pragmatists
Who, then, is running this show? Increasingly it seems to be the invisible, myopic pragmatists; those faceless avatars of modern Labor who mistake managerial caution for moral intelligence. This is the small-target governance of realpolitik, the gutless risk-avoidance that flatters itself as prudence. Yet it turns out to be a type of costly false economy; in the refusal to confront or even name the deeper moral crises beneath Australian politics; it proves a costly wrong, right turn.
Labor still governs as if haunted by ghosts: of Murdoch’s tabloids, of Trump’s shadow, of talkback nationalism. So fearful of offending the pro-Israel lobby or a resurgent Washington, they have allowed Australia’s political stage to be colonised by a foreign narrative. It is one thing to host Isaac Herzog on a “healing tour.” It is another to pretend that such theatre constitutes diplomacy while Gaza still smoulders and UN inquiries speak of mass dispossession.
Under the banner of “social cohesion,” the government has transformed mourning into a managed event and dissent into security risk.
The Ritual of Control
January’s Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Act is the latest iteration of this logic; a law that inflates “incitement” until speech itself becomes suspect. Under the euphemism of protection, dissent becomes pathology. This is governance as theatre: motion without moral movement, legislative vigour masking ethical paralysis.
Paul Keating warned of the “instant band-aid”—politics mistaking activity for achievement. The current government has perfected the art. It calls Parliament to ban protest chants overnight, but remains paralysed before the “recreational hunting” loopholes that armed the Akrams. You can now go to prison for carrying a certain flag, but not for stockpiling a .308 rifle under the name of sport.
The Day of Kettling
And so came February 9, the day that Albanese and Minns kettled not only citizens, but independence of mind itself. In those 24 hours, freedom of expression was pinned beneath riot shields, freedom of association shoved into police vans, and the rights of conscience, democracy, and common decency were trampled into the wet asphalt of George Street.
Australia has always prided itself on a kind of decent moderation; the belief that even in our disputes, there existed a shared moral floor. What unfolded yesterday suggests that floor has given way. The government’s instinctive use of force against non-violence didn’t merely reveal insecurity—it revealed contempt. For protest, for plurality, and for the ordinary intelligence of the public.
History will not remember this as a day of security. It will remember it as a day of surrender; the moment when a Labor government, raised on the language of solidarity, chose the comfort of coercion over the courage of care.
The Moral Reckoning
We are witnessing the normalisation of the riot shield as a symbol of civic order, a transformation as swift as it is insidious. When a government greets a vigil with chemicals and batons, it is not protecting its people. It is protecting itself.
True cohesion is never policed; it is nurtured. It grows when governments address inequality rather than manage optics, when they embrace dissent as a sign of health, not heresy. It exists in the old Australian compact between decency and fairness; an agreement far older than Parliament and infinitely more fragile.
Labor, if it still remembers, must left heel; breaking from the intellectual, moral and spiritual shipwreck of the Shoppies bloc and return to its real heritage: the workers and communities who built a nation out of solidarity, common care, and the stubborn conviction that a free people stand tallest when they stand together.
Until then, we remain a country barricaded from itself.
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.
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 attack.
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”.
Bondi’s Blood, Herzog’s Shield: How Australia’s Grief was Hijacked for Geopolitics
The invitation of Isaac Herzog to Australia was not an act of solidarity. It was an act of political calculation; a cynical attempt to fold the grief of Bondi’s victims into a diplomatic script that served the government’s interests, not theirs.
The emergence of the Jewish Council of Australia (JCA), a progressive body representing a significant segment of the Jewish community, disrupted the government’s assumptions. The JCA warned that using Jewish grief as a diplomatic backdrop risked entrenching the dangerous conflation between Jewish identity and the Israeli state, a conflation that has already fuelled antisemitism around the world. Their warning went unheeded.
10 February 2026 David Tyler, https://theaimn.net/bondis-blood-herzogs-shield-how-australias-grief-was-hijacked-for-geopolitics/
The Massacre as a Mirror
The Bondi massacre was not an aberration. It was a reflection, a brutal, unfiltered image of the fractures in Australia’s legal frameworks, the cynicism of its political class, and the ease with which communal grief can be repurposed for geopolitical theatre. On 14 December 2025, Sajid Akram and his son Naveed opened fire on a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach, killing fifteen people and wounding over forty. It was the deadliest mass shooting since Port Arthur, the worst antisemitic attack in Australian history, and a tragedy that exposed not one or two failures, but a cascade of systemic neglect.
This violence did not emerge from a vacuum. It was the latest eruption in a long, unbroken line of homegrown brutality. The 1928 Coniston massacre, where state-sanctioned militias slaughtered Indigenous Australians under the guise of frontier justice. The 1978 Hilton bombing, which shattered the illusion of domestic immunity. The 2019 Christchurch killings, where an Australian radical exported terror across the Tasman. Each of these events was nurtured in the cracks of our own institutions, yet each was swiftly repackaged as something else: a foreign threat, a diplomatic opportunity, or a moment to reassert the myth of Australian exceptionalism.
The Albanese government’s response to Bondi followed this script to the letter. Within weeks, Israeli President Isaac Herzog was invited to stand at the centre of Australia’s mourning, a man whose own words and actions have been cited in allegations of incitement to genocide by the International Court of Justice. The message was clear: in the face of domestic horror, Australia would default to the familiar playbook of alliance politics, even if it meant suspending its own commitments to international law and the right to dissent.
Policy Failure #1: The Firearms Regime’s Fatal Loopholes
The weapons used at Bondi were all legally acquired. Straight-pull rifles, designed to mimic the rapidity of banned pump-action firearms while slipping through the 1996 National Firearms Agreement’s (NFA) mechanism-based categories, sat comfortably in the least restrictive licensing tiers. This was not an accident. It was the inevitable result of a firearms regime that has been systematically weakened by lobbying, political inertia, and a cultural reluctance to confront the reality of gun violence in Australia.
The NFA was never the ironclad solution it was sold as. From the outset, it was a compromise; a patchwork of state-level regulations stitched together under the pressure of public outrage after Port Arthur. Over the years, the seams have frayed. Successive governments, both Labor and Coalition, have bowed to the gun lobby’s demands, carving out exemptions for farmers, sport shooters, and collectors. The result? A licensing system so riddled with loopholes that a man investigated by ASIO for ISIS-linked associations could arm himself with lethal rapid-fire weapons without raising a single red flag.
The National Cabinet’s post-massacre reforms, announced with the usual fanfare of “never again,” arrived only after the familiar ritual of hindsight. But the real question is not whether these reforms will work; it’s why they weren’t implemented decades ago. The answer lies in the quiet, persistent influence of groups like the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia (SSAA), which has spent years lobbying against even the most modest restrictions. The SSAA’s success is a testament to the power of organised interests over public safety; a dynamic that has played out in everything from climate policy to industrial relations.
If Australia is serious about preventing another Bondi, it must confront this reality head-on. That means closing the loopholes in the NFA, ending the revolving door between gun lobbyists and political advisors, and treating firearms regulation as a matter of national security; not a bargaining chip for rural votes.
Policy Failure #2: Intelligence – Blind Spots and Misplaced Priorities
ASIO had investigated Naveed Akram for ISIS-linked associations. Yet, somehow, the licensing system never flagged the Akram household. This was not a failure of intelligence gathering. It was a failure of intelligence prioritisation; one that reflects a broader pattern in Australia’s approach to counterterrorism.
Since 9/11, Australia’s security apparatus has been obsessed with the spectre of foreign terrorism. Billions of dollars have been poured into surveillance, border security, and counter-radicalisation programs, all aimed at keeping the “external threat” at bay. Yet, time and again, the real danger comes from within. The Christchurch killer was an Australian. The Bondi killers were Australian. The Hilton bombers were Australian. In each case, the warning signs were ignored or dismissed until it was too late.
The problem is not a lack of resources. It’s a lack of focus. ASIO’s mandate is vast, encompassing everything from cybersecurity to foreign interference. But when it comes to monitoring domestic extremism, particularly the kind that doesn’t fit the “Islamist terrorist” stereotype, the agency has repeatedly dropped the ball. The Lindt Café siege, the Melbourne Bourke Street attack, and now Bondi: all cases where individuals known to authorities slipped through the cracks.
This is not just a bureaucratic failing. It’s a cultural one. Australia’s security establishment remains fixated on the idea of terrorism as an imported phenomenon, something that can be kept out with enough border controls and surveillance. The result is a blind spot the size of a continent; one that allows homegrown radicals to arm themselves, plan their attacks, and strike with devastating effect.
If we are to learn anything from Bondi, it must be this: the greatest threat to Australia’s security is not some shadowy foreign network. It’s the failures of our own systems; the gaps in our laws, the biases in our intelligence agencies, and the political cowardice that prevents us from addressing them.
Policy Failure #3: The Geopolitical Exploitation of Grief
The invitation of Isaac Herzog to Australia was not an act of solidarity. It was an act of political calculation; a cynical attempt to fold the grief of Bondi’s victims into a diplomatic script that served the government’s interests, not theirs.
Above all, Herzog’s presence in Australia is fraught with legal and moral contradictions. The International Court of Justice has found the allegation of genocide against Israel “plausible” and ordered the state to prevent genocidal acts. A United Nations Commission of Inquiry concluded in 2024 that Herzog himself engaged in “direct and public incitement to commit genocide,” citing his statement that “it is an entire nation out there that is responsible.” These are not fringe allegations. They are serious, internationally recognised findings, and they attach to the man Australia chose to place at the centre of its national mourning.
The political logic behind the invitation is clear. After the deadliest antisemitic attack in the country’s history, the Albanese government sought to reassure a frightened Jewish community while maintaining alignment with the United States. In moments of crisis, governments default to familiar interlocutors. The problem is that, in this case, the familiar interlocutor was a figure facing credible allegations of war crimes.
The emergence of the Jewish Council of Australia (JCA), a progressive body representing a significant segment of the Jewish community, disrupted the government’s assumptions. The JCA warned that using Jewish grief as a diplomatic backdrop risked entrenching the dangerous conflation between Jewish identity and the Israeli state, a conflation that has already fuelled antisemitism around the world. Their warning went unheeded.
Instead, the government doubled down. Herzog’s visit was declared a “major event” under the NSW Major Events Act 2009, granting police extraordinary powers; warrantless searches, exclusion zones, and the ability to restrict public assemblies for months. Three thousand officers were deployed, with snipers stationed on rooftops. Sydney was transformed into a security theatre, where the right to protest was suspended to shield a foreign head of state from public criticism.
The scale of dissent was far larger than mainstream broadcasters acknowledge. While the ABC described “hundreds” of protesters in Melbourne, independent footage and on-the-ground reporting suggested the turnout was in the thousands. In Sydney, thousands gathered at Town Hall, only to be met with capsicum spray and arrests when they attempted to march. The message was unmistakable: in the name of “solidarity,” the Australian state was willing to suspend the democratic rights of its own citizens.
The Deeper Contradiction: Gaza and the Rule of Law
The irony of this crackdown was not lost on those who noted the stark contrast with Australia’s response to the ongoing violence in Gaza. Despite a US-brokered ceasefire agreed to in October 2025, the killing has not stopped. Since that agreement, over 500 Palestinians have been killed, and hundreds more have been retrieved from the rubble. The death toll now exceeds 72,000. Herzog, as the titular head of the Israeli state, presides over a government that continues to restrict life-saving aid even as it claims to participate in a truce.
Australia’s signature on the Genocide Convention carries a positive duty to prevent genocide and to refrain from complicity. This obligation is non-derogable. It cannot be set aside, even in times of crisis. Yet, by centring Herzog in its response to Bondi, the Australian government did precisely that. It offered a form of diplomatic indemnification to a leader facing credible allegations of incitement, while simultaneously suppressing domestic dissent in his name.
This is not solidarity. It is complicity. And it raises a fundamental question: if Australia is willing to suspend its commitment to international law in the name of “comforting” one community, what does that say about its commitment to justice for all?
A Path Forward: Truth, Accountability, and Policy
The lessons of Bondi are not just about what went wrong. They are about what must change.
Firearms Reform: Close the loopholes in the NFA. Ban straight-pull rifles and any other weapons designed to circumvent the spirit of the law. End the influence of the gun lobby in political decision-making.
Intelligence Overhaul: Reorient ASIO’s priorities to focus on domestic extremism, regardless of ideology. Invest in community-based counter-radicalisation programs that address the root causes of violence, rather than just the symptoms.
Diplomatic Integrity: Australia’s foreign policy must be consistent with its legal obligations. Inviting leaders accused of war crimes to stand as symbols of national mourning is not just hypocritical; it is a violation of our duties under international law.
Protest Rights: The Major Events Act and other laws used to suppress dissent during Herzog’s visit must be repealed or radically reformed. The right to protest is not a privilege to be revoked at the government’s convenience. It is the bedrock of democracy.
Bondi’s grief does not need a geopolitical interpreter. It needs truth, accountability, and a government capable of upholding the law, even when-and especially when- it is uncomfortable. The real tribute to the victims of Bondi is not a photo op with a foreign leader. It is a commitment to ensuring that the failures that enabled their deaths are never repeated.
This article was originally published on URBAN WRONSKI WRITES
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.
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.”
The Opportunity Cost of Permanent War: How Australia is Bankrupting Its Future
Australian Independent Media ,7 February 2026 Dr Andrew Klein, PhD
This article quantifies the true cost of Australia’s strategic and political choices: the opportunity cost of permanent war and security theatre. By tracing capital flows away from societal foundations (housing, health, education, infrastructure) and towards militarisation, surveillance, and a dysfunctional mental health system, we demonstrate a generational wealth transfer. This transfer benefits a nexus of political elites, defence contractors, and foreign interests while actively dismantling Australian sovereignty and quality of life. Using government data, academic research, and public financial records, I argue that Australia’s political class is presiding over the deliberate, observable failure of the nation-state project.
The Great Diversion: From Foundations to Fortresses
The central economic fact of 21st-century Australia is not a lack of wealth, but its malignant allocation. Every dollar spent on fruitless foreign wars or domestic surveillance is a dollar stolen from the future.
1. The Military-Industrial Drain
Australia’s direct expenditure on post-9/11 conflicts (Afghanistan, Iraq) exceeds A$50 billion (DFAT, Cost of War summaries; Watson Institute). The commitment is accelerating. The AUKUS pact, centred on acquiring nuclear-powered submarines, is estimated to cost between A$268-368 billion over three decades (Australian Parliamentary Budget Office, 2023). This single project’s opportunity cost is staggering: it equals nearly the entire annual federal budget for education, health, and social security for multiple years.
2. The Security Theatre & Surveillance State
The annual budget for the national security apparatus (ASIO, AFP, Border Force, cyber) now exceeds A$7 billion (Home Affairs Portfolio Budget Statements). This funds a vast surveillance architecture, including the costly and rights-infringing metadata retention scheme, which has shown negligible public safety ROI (Law Council of Australia, Review of Data Retention Regime). This expenditure creates not safety, but a climate of fear and control, while starving cybersecurity and critical infrastructure hardening of funds…………………………………………………………
Sovereignty Sold: Membership in Five Eyes and subservience to US foreign policy – particularly the provocative stance toward China, Australia’s largest trading partner – has sacrificed independent statecraft for vassalage. This has resulted in tangible economic damage from trade disruptions (Australian National University, The Economic Impact of Australia-China Tensions).
Foreign Influence: The influence of the State of Israel on Australian policy is a case study in captured sovereignty. From bipartisan support during the Gaza genocide to the stifling of criticism via weaponised accusations of antisemitism, Australian policy is demonstrably aligned with a foreign nation’s interests over its own moral and legal obligations (see The Australia Israel Cultural Exchange and parliamentary voting records).
The Think-Tank & Lobbyist Pipeline: Policy is increasingly crafted by opaque think-tanks (e.g., Australian Strategic Policy Institute – heavily defence contractor-funded) and enforced by lobbyists. The fossil fuel, gambling, and defence sectors wield disproportionate influence, writing legislation that privatises profit and socialises risk (Centre for Public Integrity, Lobbying in Australia).
The Political Cartel: A Duopoly of Failure
Both major parties are complicit in this wealth transfer.
The Albanese Labor Government: Has betrayed its base by escalating military spending, deepening AUKUS, maintaining cruel refugee policies, and failing to address the housing/ cost-of-living crisis it decried in opposition. Its commitment to stage-three tax cuts, which overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, is the final proof of its allegiance to capital over citizens (Parliamentary Budget Office analysis).
The Liberal-National Coalition: Under leaders like Sussan Ley and influenced by the hard-right, it advocates for even deeper militarisation, climate inaction, and further erosion of social services. Its role is to drag the Overton window further toward oligarchy……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://theaimn.net/the-opportunity-cost-of-permanent-war-how-australia-is-bankrupting-its-future/#google_vignette
Why I Cannot Stand By: Protesting Israeli President Herzog’s Visit to Australia
Herzog isn’t just any visiting dignitary. He reportedly signed artillery shells destined for Gaza – a symbolic endorsement of actions that have killed tens of thousands of civilians, the majority women and children.
By Sue Barrett, 7 February 2026 AIMN Editorial, https://theaimn.net/why-i-cannot-stand-by-protesting-israeli-president-herzogs-visit-to-australia/
When the Jewish Council of Australia says ‘not in our name,’ we have a moral duty to stand with them. Join us on 9th February 2026.
This Monday, I’ll be protesting Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s visit to Australia. This isn’t about politics. It’s about moral clarity.
The Context
On December 14, 2025, fifteen people were killed in a horrific attack at a Hanukkah event on Bondi Beach. The grief is real. The trauma is profound.
Nine days later, on December 23, the Zionist Federation of Australia invited Herzog to meet with victims’ families and survivors. That same day, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese elevated this to an official state visit. Herzog arrives Sunday, February 8, with full red-carpet protocol.
The intention – solidarity with Jewish Australians – is understandable. The execution is appalling.
Why This Matters
Because grief should never be weaponised to provide political cover for someone implicated in grave human rights violations.
UN experts, including Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese and Professor Ben Saul, have flagged Herzog’s statements as potentially inciting genocide in Gaza. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Gallant for war crimes. Australia has obligations under international law.
Human rights lawyer Chris Sidoti has called for rescinding the invitation “for the sake of social cohesion,” arguing that Herzog’s presence inflames rather than heals divisions. Federal Labor MP Ed Husic has voiced deep concerns. Greens Senator David Shoebridge urges the government to withdraw the invitation immediately.
This is not about denying Jewish Australian grief. It’s about refusing to let that grief be used as a political prop while there is genocide in Gaza.
I Stand With the Jewish Council of Australia
The most powerful voices against this visit are progressive Jewish Australians themselves.
The Jewish Council of Australia launched a petition declaring: “Israeli President Herzog does not speak for us and is not welcome here.”
Their statement is unequivocal: “This visit betrays Jewish communities, multicultural Australia, and advocates for Palestinian human rights. It conflates Jewish identity with Israeli state actions – a dangerous and offensive move that puts Australian Jews at greater risk, not less.”
Executive Officer Sarah Schwartz warns against “using Jewish grief as a political prop.” The Council has joined a historic legal complaint with the Hind Rajab Foundation and Australian National Imams Council, calling for Herzog to be arrested or barred entry over allegations of incitement to genocide and war crimes.
Progressive Jewish groups like Jews Against the Occupation ‘48 are organising protests. These are not fringe voices – these are Jewish Australians refusing to let their identity be weaponised to justify the unjustifiable.
What Herzog Represents
I stand with them. I support their work. This is what true solidarity looks like
Herzog isn’t just any visiting dignitary. He reportedly signed artillery shells destined for Gaza – a symbolic endorsement of actions that have killed tens of thousands of civilians, the majority women and children.
When UN experts warn that a leader’s rhetoric contributes to potential genocide, when the ICC issues arrest warrants for war crimes against his government’s senior officials, when respected Australian human rights lawyers call for his arrest upon arrival – we have an obligation to listen.
Australia Deserves Better
This visit doesn’t foster unity. It deepens divisions.
It tells Palestinian Australians their lives matter less. It tells progressive Jewish Australians their voices don’t count. It tells the world that Australia will provide red-carpet protocol to leaders implicated in humanitarian catastrophes as long as they claim to represent “the Jewish community.”
That’s not solidarity. That’s complicity
True solidarity means:
Condemning all violence unequivocally- Supporting Jewish Australians in their grief
- AND refusing to let that grief be exploited to normalise violations of international law
- AND standing with Palestinians facing unimaginable suffering
- AND listening when progressive Jewish voices say “not in our name”
These things are not contradictory. They’re all essential to justice.
Monday, February 9
Protests are planned across Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, and beyond. Thousands will gather. NSW Police have extended restrictions on demonstrations, citing “safety concerns” – an attempt to stifle dissent rather than address the root problem.
I’ll be there because silence is complicity
I’ll be there alongside the Jewish Council of Australia, Jews Against the Occupation, Palestinian Australians, and people of conscience from every background.
I’ll be there because when a government provides honours to someone implicated in potential genocide, when UN experts warn us, when our own international law obligations demand action – we have a moral duty to speak.
This Is About Values
Australia prides itself on fairness, multiculturalism, and standing against atrocities. We signed the Genocide Convention. We claim to uphold international law. We say we care about human rights.
Then we must act like it.
Hosting Herzog isn’t just poor judgement – it’s a betrayal of everything we claim to stand for. It says Australia’s commitment to human rights is conditional. It says some lives matter more than others. It says international law applies only when convenient.
I reject that. So do thousands of Australians who will protest Monday.
What I Ask
Join us Monday. If you can’t attend, speak out. Share the Jewish Council of Australia’s petition. Contact your MP and demand they condemn this visit. Support organisations doing the hard work of building true solidarity across communities.
Listen to progressive Jewish voices. The Jewish Council of Australia, Jews Against the Occupation, and countless Jewish Australians who refuse to let their identity be weaponised are showing us what courage looks like.
Understand that opposing this visit is not antisemitic – it’s anti-racist. It refuses the conflation of Jewish identity with Israeli state actions. It protects Jewish Australians by rejecting the very logic that puts them at risk.
Demand better from our government. Australia can support Jewish Australians in their grief without providing state honours to leaders implicated in war crimes. These are not incompatible positions.
Final Word
On December 14, fifteen people were murdered in a tragic attack. That grief is sacred. Those lives mattered. That horror demands justice.
However, justice cannot be built on hypocrisy
We cannot condemn violence against Australians while honouring a leader whose government’s actions are under investigation for war crimes and potential genocide. We cannot claim to stand for human rights while rolling out red carpets for those who violate them.
The families who lost loved ones at Bondi Beach deserve genuine solidarity – not the politicisation of their grief. The Jewish Council of Australia is showing us what that looks like: refusing to let tragedy be exploited, demanding accountability for all, building a future where no community’s safety depends on another’s suffering.
That’s the solidarity I choose. That’s the Australia I believe in
Monday, February 9. We stand for justice. We stand with progressive Jewish voices. We stand against complicity.
We cannot – we will not – stand by.
Join us.
You know what to do.
Onward we press
Details:
When: Monday, February 9, 2026
Where: Protests in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, and other cities – see the list below.
Who: Jewish Council of Australia, Jews Against the Occupation ‘48, Palestine Action Group, and thousands of Australians of conscience.
This is a peaceful protest. If you’re attending, bring water, wear comfortable shoes, know your legal rights. Legal observers will be present.
Support: Jewish Council of Australia petition and information at jewishcouncil.com.au
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.
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.
Australia: HRF, Jewish Council and ANIC Demand Arrest or Entry Ban of Israeli President
January 30th 2026, https://www.hindrajabfoundation.org/posts/australia-hrf-jewish-council-and-anic-demand-arrest-or-entry-ban-of-israeli-president
In a historic joint action, the Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF), the Jewish Council of Australia, and the Australian National Imams Council (ANIC), have lodged a formal legal complaint to have Israeli President Isaac Herzog arrested or barred from entering Australia. The groups, represented by renowned barrister Robert Richter KC, allege 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, sent yesterday to Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke and the Australian Federal Police (AFP), warns that the President’s visit is “highly inflammatory”.
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.
Dyab Abou Jahjah, Hind Rajab Foundation:
“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.”
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.”
As Trump Threatens Weekend Strike on Iran, Albanese Pretends Pine Gap Isn’t Complicit
1 February 2026 David Tyler AIM Extra
Albanese’s Iran Illusion: How Australia Sleepwalks into Someone Else’s War
While our federal government waffles on about rules based order, Iran is rewriting the rules of modern warfare. Trump is threatening regime-change. The Strait of Hormuz has become a kill box where $13 billion aircraft carriers play sitting duck to lethal, glorified speedboats, where cyberattacks double as deterrence, and where Australia, ever the loyal deputy, pretends it’s all someone else’s problem. Labor’s silence isn’t prudence. It’s complicity in a US strategy that’s already unravelling, and we’ve got the scars to prove it.
Trump already bombed Iran once. In June 2025, Operation Midnight Hammer saw seven B-2 stealth bombers drop bunker-busters on three nuclear facilities while Pine Gap provided the targeting data. Iran’s face-saving response, a telegraphed missile strike on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, fooled no one. But it burned through 25% of America’s total THAAD interceptor stockpiles, missiles the US produces at a rate of roughly one per month. Now Trump’s threatening round two, this time with explicit regime-change goals, and Albanese still won’t acknowledge that Australia’s uncritical alignment has painted a target on our own facilities.
The real damage? Washington’s isolation campaign isn’t weakening Tehran. It’s shoving Iran into Beijing and Moscow’s arms, locking in an anti-Western axis that thrives on American blunders, while teaching every threshold nuclear state that compliance buys nothing but bombs. Why won’t Labor admit the scale of the mess? Because doing so would mean confessing its own role in a policy already fraying at the seams.
Iran’s Budget Warfare: Turning American Strength into Liability
Iran isn’t trying to match the US ship for ship. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has crafted a playbook that turns American firepower into dead weight: coastal swarms, cyber harassment, proxy deterrence. The goal isn’t winning a war. It’s making escalation so unpredictable, expensive, and politically toxic that the US thinks twice before starting one.
In the cramped waters of the Strait, even Iran’s modest fleet of fast-attack craft becomes a force multiplier. The IRGC doesn’t need a knockout punch, just enough chaos to trap US commanders in a no-win scenario. Push ahead and risk humiliation. Retreat and signal weakness. Dither in the middle while morale drains away. So far, the Pentagon has mostly chosen door number three, proving you can outspend your opponent by billions and still lose the initiative to speedboats and audacity.
The Strait of Hormuz: Where Geography Beats Firepower
The USS Abraham Lincoln isn’t just another, elderly ship in the Strait. It’s a floating monument to American overreach, now redeployed for what Trump calls an “armada larger than Venezuela,” the latest regime-change operation on his scorecard. Iran’s swarm tactics don’t need to sink a nuclear-powered carrier to succeed. They just need to make every transit a gamble, every patrol a potential disaster.
The IRGC’s speedboats may look like dinghies, but in these confined waters where 20% of the world’s oil flows, they’re a constant reminder: geography, not firepower, decides who blinks first. Tehran isn’t trying to win a shootout. It’s turning the Strait into a quagmire where the US loses whether it escalates or backs down, and every crisis burns through irreplaceable defensive systems while China takes notes.
Cyber Jihad: How Iran Turned Hacking into Deterrence
Iran may not match Russia or China’s cyber prowess, but it doesn’t need to. Its campaigns against US, Israeli, and Gulf targets aren’t about knockout blows. They’re about raising costs, sowing doubt, ensuring any strike on Iranian soil comes with a digital counterpunch. From disrupting Saudi oil facilities to probing Israeli water systems, Tehran’s message is simple: hit us, and we hit back, not just with missiles, but with chaos in your backyard.
At home, the regime has weaponised the internet itself, using imported surveillance tech and homegrown censorship to crush dissent. Since January 8, Iran’s internet connectivity has been throttled to 1% of normal levels, a digital blackout designed to hide what appears to be one of the bloodiest crackdowns in modern Iranian history. It’s crude, effective, and one more layer of deterrence the Pentagon now factors into every war plan.
The Massacres Under the Blackout: What Trump’s “Humanitarian” Intervention Ignores
Here’s what Trump won’t mention when he frames the next strike as protecting Iranian protesters: his administration is planning regime change in a country already reeling from mass killings. Since late December, Iran has experienced its largest uprising since 1979, sparked by currency collapse and spreading nationwide. The regime’s response has been catastrophic…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The Pine Gap Paradox: Australia’s Uncritical Complicity
Australia isn’t a neutral observer. Through Pine Gap, we provided the intelligence backbone enabling the June 2025 strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, operations now drawing genocide allegations at the ICJ given the broader context of US-Israeli coordination. That makes us complicit, and Tehran has noticed.
Iranian Brigadier General Mohammad Akraminia was explicit in his warning: if the US strikes again, “the scope of war will certainly extend across the entire region… From the Zionist regime to countries that host American military bases, all will be within range of our missiles and drones.” That’s not bluster. That’s a direct threat to Australian facilities, delivered after we’d already enabled one round of strikes.
The Herzog visit crystallises Labor’s paralysis. Albanese frames it as “solidarity” with Jewish Australians, but the timing, amid ICJ hearings, domestic protests, and credible reports of an “imminent” second US strike aimed at regime change, screams political theatre. Hosting an Israeli president while Pine Gap’s data flows unrestricted into contested operations isn’t tone-deaf. It’s a neon sign for Iranian retaliation: cyberattacks, grey-zone harassment, or worse.
Yet Albanese won’t acknowledge the risks, because doing so would mean admitting our uncritical alignment with Washington has made us a target. So we get silence, deflection, empty platitudes about “shared values,” while senior US military officials tell Middle Eastern allies that Trump may strike Iran “as soon as this weekend.”
Greg Moriarty, our ambassador in Washington, saw this coming. His warnings about blowback from sanctions and military-first strategies should be shaping the debate. Instead, they’ve been sidelined, because realism doesn’t win elections, and admitting the Pine Gap Paradox would require honesty this government doesn’t possess.
The Nuclear Cascade: What Comes After Trump Bombs Iran Again
If Trump follows through, the consequences extend far beyond the Middle East. Every regional power watching this crisis is recalculating. Saudi Arabia has made no secret of its nuclear ambitions, with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman publicly declaring the kingdom would pursue weapons if Iran did. Riyadh’s deepening defence cooperation with nuclear-armed Pakistan isn’t coincidence. It’s a hedge against American unreliability and regional instability……………………….
Crossroads: The Choice Albanese Won’t Make
Australia still has options, but the window is closing fast. We can deepen our operational integration with the US, provide targeting for regime-change strikes, and hope Iran decides we’re more trouble than we’re worth. Or we can use our position inside the American security ecosystem to argue for de-escalation, regional guarantees, diplomacy over another roll of the dice with irreplaceable defensive systems and global proliferation architecture.
The second path means telling a distracted superpower our support has limits, that we won’t sign a blank cheque for a strategy multiplying our exposure while delivering only drift. It means acknowledging publicly that Pine Gap’s role in the June strikes has already made Australia complicit, and that a second round aimed at regime change crosses a line we should never have approached.
But if Albanese won’t level with the public about the stakes, we risk sleepwalking into a conflict shaped by other people’s decisions, on other people’s timelines, with Australian facilities providing the targeting data that helps trigger a regional war and global nuclear cascade.
Drop Site News reports the strike could come “as soon as this weekend.” Common Dreams notes 56% of Americans already believe Trump has gone too far with military interventions. Even many Iranian protesters warn the US will exploit their struggle rather than support it. The pieces are in place for a catastrophic escalation, one that makes the June strikes look like a warning shot.
The question isn’t whether Australia can afford to speak plainly about these risks. It’s whether we can afford not to, and whether Albanese has the courage to admit that our “shared values” with Washington don’t extend to enabling regime-change operations that will make us targets while accelerating nuclear proliferation across the Middle East.
The silence from Canberra isn’t prudence. It’s complicity. And if Trump pulls the trigger this weekend, Albanese’s refusal to acknowledge our role will look less like diplomacy and more like dereliction.
This article was originally published on URBAN WRONSKI WRITES, https://theaimn.net/as-trump-threatens-weekend-strike-on-iran-albanese-pretends-pine-gap-isnt-complicit/
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 