As Australia’s dear friend Israel announces its plan to move Gaza’s entire population into concentration camps to prepare them for deportation and murder them if they refuse, the Australian government is laser-focused on tackling the problem of — you guessed it — antisemitism.
The author of the plan is Jillian Segal, a career Israel lobbyist born in apartheid South Africa who was named Australia’s first Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism by the Albanese government last year. Segal has had an established record of defending and supporting Israel’s genocidal atrocities in Gaza. Her husband John Roth directs one of the major funders of Advance, a climate denying right wing lobbying group which helped kill Australia’s Indigenous Voice to Parliament in 2023.
Segal’s plan is being slammed as “Trumpian” by free speech advocates because it advocates implementing the US president’s policy of cutting off federal funding for universities and other public institutions deemed to be promoting the spread of antisemitism, which of course in effect means protesting against the actions of the Israeli government. Segal writes that she personally “will work with government to enable government funding to be withheld, where possible, from universities, programs or individuals within universities that facilitate, enable or fail to act against antisemitism.”
Segal calls for all public institutions to be forced into espousing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which has been opposed around the world for its conflation of criticism of Israel with hateful actions toward Jews. Under the IHRA definition it is considered antisemitic to claim that Israel is a racist endeavor, or to compare Israel’s abuses to those of Nazi Germany — both of which are entirely legitimate criticisms which should be put forward far more often than they are.
Here is a summary of the full scope of Segal’s plan written up by the ABC’s Tom Crowley:
Education — a greater role for the Envoy to resource and educate the community, schools, businesses and public institutions about antisemitism and to embed an understanding of antisemitism in law enforcement, government agencies and the school curriculum.
Universities — call to withhold public funding to universities or those within them deemed to “facilitate, enable or fail to act” on antisemitism, and an inquiry into “clusters” of antisemitism if encampments continue into 2026.
Media — a new role for the Envoy to encourage media organisations to “avoid accepting false or distorted narratives” and encourage public broadcasters to “accurately and positively” represent Jewish history and culture and make programs that support “social cohesion”.
Arts — a recommendation that there be protocols for arts festivals and organisations to respond to antisemitic incidents, with public funding able to be withheld similar to universities.
Policing — a permanent standing arrangement for law enforcement agencies to co-operate on investigating antisemitism, similar to the Avalite taskforce set up after the Adass synagogue attack.
Online hate — stronger regulation of online hate speech and algorithms, and the ability to support “trusted voices” to refute antisemitism on social media, plus a review of hate speech laws.
Migration — screen visa applicants for antisemitism and ensure the Migration Act effectively facilitates visa cancellations for antisemitism.
As you can see, Segal is demanding the authority to exert control over pretty much every major aspect of Australian society. She is claiming she wants to do this to combat antisemitism, but everyone knows she actually wants to do this to promote the interests of Israel, because that’s what these things always mean in practice.
Segal’s plan claims that “manipulated narratives in the legacy media” are driving antisemitism and accuses the Australian press of “misinformation”, asserting that “publicly funded media organisations should be required to uphold clear editorial standards that promote fair, responsible reporting to avoid perpetuating incorrect or distorted narratives or representations of Jews.”
Segal says that under her plan she will “monitor media organisations to encourage accurate, fair and responsible reporting and assist them to meet their editorial standards and commitment to impartiality and balance and to avoid accepting false or distorted narratives.”
Asked on the ABC on Thursday to list some of the changes that she would make to the reporting of public news broadcasters, Segal adamantly refused to give a single example, despite being repeatedly pressed to do so by the ABC’s Sarah Ferguson.
The following morning Segal was interviewed on the ABC’s Radio National Breakfast and pressed on the same issue, where she finally relented and gave one single example of absolutely breathtaking ridiculousness.
“Six months ago or so,” Segal said, “the ABC ran a story repeatedly about a hospital in Gaza that had been bombed. And there was incomplete information, as there is only perhaps information emanating from Hamas, but it was alleged to be, the ABC reported as fact, that it had been bombed by Israel. And then horrified people were upset and the Jewish community was looked at with disgust and worse. And then it turned out indeed that it was not bombed by Israel, that it had been from Gaza itself, and it had been a bomb that had fallen short.”
Segal appears to be referring to one of the early bombings of the al-Ahli Arab Baptist Hospital, which occurred not six months ago but in October of 2023. Israel and various western institutions claimed the hospital was accidentally bombed by Palestinian forces while analysts like Forensic Architecture say the attack came from Israeli forces, accusing Israel of peddling misinformation about the strike. Since that time Israel has deliberately demolished Gaza’s health infrastructure with hundreds of attacks on healthcare facilities, and the al-Ahli Hospital has been bombed no fewer than eight separate times.
Segal’s one and only example is a perfect illustration of the kind of extreme bias she wants to impose upon Australian consciousness, which obviously has no place in a free society.
The fraudulent antisemitism panic in Australia has been reinvigorated by two events last week that were seized upon with shrieking hysteria by the mainstream press, none of which showed any signs of an antisemitism crisis in our nation.
As Paul Gregoire explains for the Sydney Criminal Lawyers blog, Australia is being whipped up into a frenzy by the conflation of one incident in which a Sydney man set fire to the doors of a Melbourne synagogue with a different and completely legitimate act of anti-genocide activism.
The synagogue attacker is yet another story of a shady individual with no known record of antisemitic ideology or pro-Palestinian sentiment perpetrating an apparent antisemitic attack, following a long stretch of supposed antisemitic incidents which turned out to have been staged by organized crime operatives with no ideological motive.
This one dubious story of a man committing an actual crime against an actual Jewish place of worship has been obnoxiously mentioned in the same breath as another unconnected incident by the entire Australian political/media class all week. Protesters gathered at the Miznon restaurant in Melbourne to demonstrate against the establishment’s Israeli co-owner, who is also the spokesperson for the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation where Israeli soldiers admit they’ve been massacring starving civilians seeking food. A fight broke out with a group from the restaurant across from Miznon who the protesters say instigated the attack and who are clearly seen assaulting the pro-Palestinian activists in the available video footage.
The entire so-called “antisemitism crisis” in Australia is like this. The overwhelming majority of it is just people criticizing Israel and trying to do what they can to stop the live-streamed genocide they’ve been watching on their screens every day for two years, which is then deliberately conflated with the actions of a few fringe actors with frequently suspicious motives.
“Antisemitism” means criticism of Israel. That’s just what it means now. It used to mean something else, but years of bad faith actors using that word in the most dishonest ways imaginable to defend the most horrific things you’ve ever seen has changed the definition. It is no longer possible to separate that word from this sustained campaign of mass deception.
It’s the genocide. People are mad at the genocide. They don’t hate Jews, they hate genocide. This was explained quite nicely the other day by Jack Mirkinson, who wrote the following about the controversy surrounding musical duo Bob Vylan’s chants of “Death to the IDF” at Glastonbury Festival last month:
“Left unmentioned in any of this freakout is the context in which it is taking place. Why was Bob Vylan talking about Palestine right now? Why was a giant crowd of people so receptive to these comments? Why has this become such a totemic issue?
“The answer will not shock you. It’s because Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza for nearly two years.
“That’s it! That’s why. People don’t like genocide, and when they see a country committing genocide, they stop liking that country so much. If the genocide ended, a lot of people would be less mad at Israel than they are right now.
This isn’t rocket science. But — and this is the crucial thing — because our world’s leading politicians and media outlets fundamentally don’t see opposition to the genocide as a legitimate viewpoint to hold, they can’t quite comprehend what is happening all around them.”
That’s it. It’s the genocide, stupid. That’s all this has ever been about. I wish I could force every pundit, politician and journalist in Australia to listen to these words.
Explore how Zionist influence in Australia’s shapes our politics and media while silencing Palestinian voices and enabling war crimes.
Introduction: The Silence That Screams
In the blistering heat of a Sydney summer rally, a Jewish Australian protester raised a sign: “Not in My Name – Justice for Gaza.” The woman’s voice trembled as she spoke: “I grew up thinking Zionism was just loving Israel. Now I realise it’s become a shield for injustice.”
Her words echo the growing concerns about Zionist influence in Australia and its role in stifling open debate on the Palestine-Israel conflict.
That trembling voice speaks for many. But why do Australian politicians stay silent? Why does mainstream media gloss over the deaths of Palestinian children, yet amplify outrage when Israel is criticised? The answer lies in the entrenched, well-funded power of the Zionist lobby in Australia – a force that not only shapes foreign policy but suppresses dissent and legitimises war crimes.
This article explores how Zionist influence in Australia operates, why so many politicians enable it, and how a growing number of Jewish and non-Jewish Australians are speaking out.
What Is Zionism and Why Does It Matter in Australia?
Zionism began as a Jewish nationalist movement in the late 19th century advocating for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. After the establishment of Israel in 1948, it evolved into a political ideology justifying the Israeli state’s actions, including occupation, displacement, and militarisation.
In Australia, Zionism is embedded in influential Jewish organisations, media representation, and foreign policy. It’s less about cultural identity and more about unconditional political allegiance to Israel.
Zionist influence in Australia continues to shape key foreign policy decisions, despite mounting evidence of human rights abuses.
Who Supports Zionism in Australia?
The Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA)
The ZFA is the umbrella body representing Zionist organisations across Australia. It liaises with Israeli government agencies and coordinates national advocacy. Its lobbying efforts are aimed at securing bipartisan support for Israel and silencing criticism.
The ZFA plays a significant role in maintaining Zionist influence in Australia’s political discourse.
AIJAC and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ)
ECAJ operates as the public face of the Jewish community, but its statements overwhelmingly support Israeli government narratives, even during military assaults on Gaza.
Bipartisan Political Support
Both Labor and Liberal parties regularly attend ZFA and AIJAC events. Public statements from both parties often affirm Israel’s “right to defend itself,” even when such actions include bombing residential buildings in Gaza. This bipartisan alignment suggests a troubling detachment from international law and public sentiment.
It also reflects how deeply Zionist influence in Australia has penetrated major political institutions.
Silencing Dissent: How the Zionist Lobby Controls the Narrative
Weaponising Antisemitism
Critics of Israeli policies, including Jewish Australians, are often labelled antisemitic. This tactic deters meaningful debate and chills freedom of speech. The IHRA definition of antisemitism, adopted by several institutions, blurs the line between racism and political critique, aiding the suppression of pro-Palestinian voices.
This mechanism is one of the key ways Zionist influence in Australia suppresses accountability.
Media Control and Bias
Mainstream Australian media platforms rarely feature Palestinian voices. Coverage disproportionately focuses on Israeli casualties while framing Gaza’s suffering as collateral damage. This imbalance stems from pressure by pro-Israel lobbyists and the desire to avoid backlash.
This reflects the broader pattern of Zionist influence in Australia’s media landscape, where pro-Palestinian narratives are often excluded.
Case Study – ABC’s Censorship
In 2023, the ABC was accused of quietly removing segments that showed Palestinian civilian suffering. Internal sources claimed it was done to avoid political “complications.” This act mirrors the broader media reluctance to confront Israeli abuses.
The Political Cost of Speaking Out
Zionist influence in Australia makes it politically dangerous for elected officials to speak out. Politicians who challenge Zionist orthodoxy often face swift retribution:
Greens members criticising Israel are smeared as antisemitic.
Labor backbenchers who question Gaza bombings are sidelined.
Diplomat Francesca Albanese faced calls for resignation after condemning Israeli apartheid.
This silencing reinforces conformity and deters future political courage.
Australia’s Foreign Policy and Tacit Support for War Crimes
Diplomatic Silence on Gaza
Despite over 35,000 Palestinians killed since October 2023, Australia’s government has failed to call for a ceasefire or demand accountability. Statements are carefully worded to avoid offending Israel.
Trade and Military Partnerships
Australia imports surveillance technology and weapons from Israeli firms like Elbit Systems – many of which have been tested on Palestinians under occupation. Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest private arms company, markets its equipment as “battle-proven,” highlighting their use in Gaza and the West Bank.
In February 2024, Elbit was awarded a $917 million contract through Hanwha Defence Australia to supply sensors, protection, and firepower systems for new infantry fighting vehicles. This forms part of a broader $3.6 billion defence agreement with the Australian Government.
Previously, the Australian Defence Force had removed Elbit’s Battle Management System in 2021 over data security concerns, yet new contracts continue without public consultation or ethical review.
Human rights groups, including APAN and BDS Australia, have condemned these deals, arguing they support technologies used in potential war crimes and contribute to the oppression of Palestinians. Despite these objections, the Australian government remains committed to its defence partnerships with Elbit.
Human Rights Double Standards
Australia routinely condemns China’s human rights abuses but stays silent on Gaza. This hypocrisy undermines our credibility as a rights-respecting nation.
Not All Jews Support Zionism
Jewish Council of Australia
Founded in 2024, this body challenges the claim that Zionism represents all Jews. It supports Palestinian freedom, opposes racism and colonialism, and promotes open debate.
Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow
Internationally, groups like JVP and IfNotNow mobilise Jewish voices against Israeli apartheid. They protest, educate, and campaign for justice – from New York to Melbourne.
Neturei Karta and Ultra-Orthodox Opposition
Some ultra-Orthodox Jews reject Zionism on religious grounds, arguing that a Jewish state must not exist before the coming of the Messiah. These voices offer rare but critical perspectives.
Where Is the Public Outcry?
Despite tens of thousands of Australians attending Free Palestine rallies, federal politicians remain inert. Public will is not translating into political action – why?
Lobby pressure
Fear of backlash
Media framing
This democratic disconnect highlights a deeper crisis: our leaders are more responsive to powerful lobbies than to the people who elect them.
It also illustrates how Zionist influence in Australia often overrides democratic accountability.
Conclusion: It’s Time to Break the Silence
Zionist influence in Australia is real, entrenched, and deeply harmful – not just to Palestinians, but to our democracy. When politicians remain silent in the face of genocide, they are not neutral – they are complicit.
We must hold our leaders accountable. We must challenge media complicity. And we must amplify the voices calling for peace, justice, and human dignity.
Democratic Rights and Public Safety are compromised by AUKUS Regulations Section.105, an untenable override of State & Territory laws that prohibit nuclear waste storage.
Contents: Overview p2 The public has a ‘Right to Know’ who is targeted for storage of High-Level nuclear wastes 3 Indigenous People have a UN recognised Human Right to Say No to nuclear wastes 4 Regulations Section 105 overrides SA, NT and WA prohibitions on nuclear waste storage 5 Port Adelaide Enfield Council opposes AUKUS N-sub waste storage at Osborne 6 Premier Rann passed Laws that prohibits the storage of nuclear reactor waste at Osborne 7 Recommendations, in public interest disclosures required by Defence 8 As to my Relevant Background 9
Re: Democratic Rights and Public Safety are compromised by AUKUS Regulations Sec.105, an untenable override of State & Territory laws that prohibit nuclear waste storage.
An array of key Public Interests are at stake across SA, NT and WA as a consequence of draft AUKUS Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025 and in particular Section 105 State and Territory laws that do not apply in relation to a regulated activity.
I provide public input along with Recommendations as disclosures required by Defence (p.8) on public interest matters pertaining to the Regulations, some of my relevant background to these issues as a long-term environment, nuclear and public interest campaigner is cited (p.9).
Integrity, transparency, and accountability are key to public confidence in governance in Australia. The AUKUS nuclear submarine (N-sub) agenda repeatedly fails these standards. The AUKUS Regulations are the pointed end of an unfolding federal Labor agenda to take up powers to impose unwelcome and illegal AUKUS N-sub nuclear wastes on our communities. AUKUS Regulations Section 105 further undermines public confidence and trust in government.
The public has a ‘Right to Know’ who is targeted for storage of High-Level N-sub nuclear wastes. Over three years into AUKUS: Why is there still not even an announced N-waste siting process?
An uncosted liability in AUKUS N-sub nuclear wastes is being imposed on all future generations through the Regulations Section 105 over-ride of State and Territory Radiation Safety and nuclear waste related laws. As a consequence, communities across SA, the NT and WA face a future as primary targets for a federal imposed AUKUS High-Level nuclear waste storage site.
Community health and nuclear safety regards AUKUS N-subs is to be taken over by a nonindependent military nuclear regulator, set in ‘conflict of interest’ reporting to the Defence Minister – to replace the independent civilian ARPANS Agency that reports to Health Minister.
Nuclear risks to community safety warrant full transparency, accountability and public interest disclosures. The storage of N-sub so called ‘Low Level’ radioactive wastes at Osborne has been rejected by the Port Adelaide Enfield Council (12 Nov 2024, p.213-218). It is an illegal act under the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 as amended by Labor Premier Mike Rann. These AUKUS Regulations are to override SA Law and to override the will of the people in SA.
The AUKUS Regulations place the Safety, Health and Welfare, and democratic Rights and Interests of targeted Australian communities and Indigenous People at risk and unacceptably compromise’s the protection of the Environment in which they live. The Regulations specifically fail to recognise and respect Indigenous People’s UN recognised Human Right to Say No to imposition of hazardous materials, re AUKUS N-sub nuclear wastes, on their lands.
Defence should realise civil society across SA, NT and WA will actively oppose an unacceptable imposition of intractable nuclear wastes in Australia, what-ever the source. High-Level nuclear waste is a dangerous and undemocratic imposition on all future generations.
The untenable state of AUKUS N-sub nuclear waste issues demonstrates why an AUKUS military nuclear regulator can-not be trusted to protect the public interest.
The public has a ‘Right to Know’ who is targeted for storage of High-Level nuclear wastes:
Minister Richard Marles MP has still not made a promised ‘announcement’, said to be by early 2024, on a process to manage High-Level nuclear waste and to site a waste disposal facility, he saying “obviously that facility will be remote from populations” (ABC News 15 March 2023).
Best safety practice requires a storage site to be identified before acquisition or generation of High-Level nuclear wastes. AUKUS requires a site before purchase of a N-sub in early 2030’s.
The national press (11 August 2023) reports the Woomera rocket range is understood to be a ‘favoured location’ for storage and disposal of nuclear sub wastes (“Woomera looms as national nuclear waste dump site including for AUKUS submarine high-level waste afr.com).
Political leaders in WA, Qld and Vic have already rejected a High-Level nuclear waste disposal site. SA’s Premier has so far only said it should go to a ‘remote’ location in the national interest.
A ‘Review’ of the Woomera Prohibited Area was announced by Minister Marles MP: “to ensure it remains fit for purpose and meets Australia’s national security requirements” – to read also as AUKUS requirements. Public input to that Review has opposed an AUKUS N-waste storage.
Federal Labor can-not claim to have a ‘social license’ for Defence to operate on AUKUS in SA, NT and WA while failing to inform affected communities of the AUKUS nuclear risks, the cultural, environmental & socio-economic impacts they face in siting for nuclear waste storage.
The public and Traditional Owners have rights to full disclosure of nuclear risks and impacts in advance of this flawed Regulatory process that assumes a right to impose High-Level nuclear waste storage in SA, NT or WA through override of democratic laws prohibiting such wastes.
Nuclear wastes are a threat to the democratic rights of a people to decide their own future.
Storage of nuclear wastes is known to compromise the Safety and Welfare of the people of SA, that is why it is prohibited by the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000. The Objects of this Act set out the fundamental public interests that are at stake:
“The Objects of this Act are to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South Australia and to protect the environment in which they live by prohibiting the establishment of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in this State.“
This Defence regulatory process must declare in advance whether or not Defence will commit to comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Article 29 provision of Indigenous People’s Rights to “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” over storage or disposal of hazardous materials, including nuclear wastes, on their lands.
I refer this Defence process to consider “The Politics of Nuclear Waste Disposal: Lessons from Australia”, a Report by Dr Jim Green and Dimity Hawkins AM, Published by the Asia-Pacific Leadership Network (January 2024). Labor’s AUKUS agenda is failing to learn these lessons. There is an onus on this Defence regulatory process to see that it doesn’t add to a sad history of nuclear disrespect for Indigenous Human Rights and Interests across SA, the NT and WA.
Indigenous People have a UN recognised Human Right to Say No to nuclear wastes:
Traditional owners Human Right to Say No to imposition of nuclear wastes must be respected.
The AUKUS N-sub agenda triggers the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, adopted by United Nations, Sept 2007) in Indigenous People’s Article 29 Rights to “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” over storage or disposal of hazardous materials on their lands. AUKUS N-sub nuclear wastes absolutely are ‘hazardous materials’.
These Regulations should be framed in accordance with the Recommendations of the Federal Inquiry Report (Nov 2023) into the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and respect Chair of the Inquiry, Indigenous Labor Senator Patrick Dodson’s clear views, stating
“the Commonwealth Government ensure its approach to developing legislation and policy on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people be consistent with the Articles outlined in the UNDRIP”.
It is concerning Labor has so far failed to act on key Rec. No.6 of that UNDRIP Inquiry, stating:
“The Committee recommends that the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth) be amended to include the UNDRIP in the definition of ‘human rights’, so that it be formally considered when scrutinising legislation.”
Transparency is a minimum public interest standard to expect from a Federal Government.
The intensions of the Labor Federal Government AUKUS N-sub agenda, and of the Regulations in governing N-sub wastes, must be made clear: does Labor support or intend to override the Rights of Indigenous Australians under the UNDRIP Article 29 to “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” – as a Human Right to Say No – over Storage of AUKUS N-sub wastes on their lands?
Issues of Indigenous Rights verses imposition of AUKUS N-sub wastes have been repeatedly raised without response. For instance, my public input to the 2023 Defence Review and to an Inquiry into the AUKUS Bill that led to these Regulations called for needed transparency:
Defence should become transparent over proposed Navy High-Level nuclear waste disposal, policy, siting process, rights and legal issues. Defence should commit to respect and to comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Article 29 provision of Indigenous People’s rights to “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” over storage or disposal of hazardous materials on their lands.
The Labor Federal Government has long standing questions to answer, see “AUKUS nuclear waste dump must be subject to Indigenous veto” (by Michelle Fahy, May 2023):
“Bipartisan secrecy and Defence’s poor record with Indigenous groups at Woomera are red flags for consultations over an AUKUS nuclear waste dump. Human rights experts say government must establish an Indigenous veto right.”
The draft AUKUS Regulations unacceptably disregard Indigenous Peoples UN recognised Right to Say No to the imposed storage of AUKUS N-sub nuclear waste on their land.
Regulations Section 105 overrides SA, NT and WA prohibitions on nuclear waste storage:
Federal Labor is taking powers to impose AUKUS nuclear waste on SA, or on the NT, or on WA.
The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025 sets out Section 105 State and Territory laws that do not apply in relation to a regulated activity to override State & Ter Laws.
The Draft Explanatory Statement (DOCX, 145.38 KB (p.73) explains Section 105 as (extract):
Subsection 105(1) prescribes, for the purposes of section 135 of the Act, the subsections of the provision which prescribes the laws of States and Territories that do not apply in relation to a regulated activity. …
Subsection 105(3) provides that any provision of any other State or Territory law that regulates nuclear activities is prescribed and do not apply in relation to a regulated activity. This means that the laws prescribed in subsection 105(2) are expressly excluded and do not apply in relation to regulated activities; and that any parts of any other laws of States or Territories that also regulate nuclear activities do not apply to regulated activities, as defined by the Act.
The note under subsection 105(3) clarifies that such provision of a law includes provisions regulating the disposal of nuclear waste, the handling or storage of nuclear material or material contaminated with radiation, or the design, construction, operation, decommissioning or disposal of nuclear facilities.
Subsection 105(4) clarifies that subsection 105(3) does not apply to a provision of a law that is predominately for the purposes of regulating work or occupational health and safety, or protecting the environment.
The Parliamentary Report “Current prohibitions on nuclear activities in Australia: a quick guide” (May 2024) provides an overview of current prohibitions on nuclear activities under SA, NT and WA laws that protect community from the risks and impacts of nuclear wastes:
The Nuclear Waste Transport, Storage and Disposal (Prohibition) Act 2004 (NT) prohibits the construction and operation of nuclear waste storage facilities, as well as the transportation of nuclear waste for storage at a nuclear waste storage facility in the NT (Sec.6 & 7). Nuclear waste is defined as including waste material from nuclear plants or the conditioning or reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel (Sec.2). …
The Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 (SA) prohibits the construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility, and the import to SA or transport within SA of nuclear waste for delivery to a nuclear waste storage facility (Sec.8 & 9).
The Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act prohibits the SA Government from expending public funds to encourage or finance the construction or operation of nuclear waste storage facilities (Sec.13). The Act would also require the SA Parliament to hold an inquiry into the proposed construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility in SA authorised under a Commonwealth law (Sec.14). …
The Nuclear Waste Storage and Transportation (Prohibition) Act 1999 (WA) also prohibits the storage, disposal or transportation in Western Australia of certain nuclear waste, including waste from a nuclear plant or nuclear weapons (Sec.7 & 7 A, nuclear waste is defined in Sec.3).
Port Adelaide Enfield Council opposes AUKUS N-sub waste storage at Osborne:
Federal and State Labor Governments failed to engage the Port Adelaide Enfield Council (PAE) on their plan for decades of ongoing storage of AUKUS N-sub nuclear reactor radioactive wastes at Osborne, see Minutes of an PAE Ordinary Council Meeting 12 Nov 2024 (p.5-6).
11.1 Questions on Notice – Cr. den Hartog – Nuclear Waste Storage
Question 1. Has there been any correspondence or other communication between Council staff and or any elected member(s) and the Federal or State Government or Federal or State Government department regarding a dedicated nuclear waste facility at Osborne under the AUKUS Law?
Answer To the best of our knowledge there has been no correspondence or communication of this specific nature.
… Question 3. If a nuclear waste facility is established at Osborne, what is the legislative responsibility of the Council regarding community safety and well-being?
Answer Given the regulations under the Bill have yet to be publicly released, it is still unclear what legislative responsibilities under the new legislation would rest with council, if any.
However, councils are charged with many aspects of the health, safety and well-being of people under existing legislation. The Local Government Act, Public and Environmental Health Act and Environment Protection Act are examples of legislation that prescribe Council’s role and responsibilities about community safety and wellbeing. Local Government’s legislated powers in areas related to nuclear power weapons and defence are limited, but under existing legislation councils can advocate on issues relevant to their communities needs and concerns. This is one of the central premises of the draft PAE Decision Making Framework for AUKUS, which is being considered as part of tonight’s Council agenda.
Commendably, PAE decided to advocate on their communities needs & concerns over AUKUS and decided to oppose storage of low-level radioactive waste at Osborne, see the PAE Council Recommendations passed at the Ordinary Council Meeting – 12 Nov 2024 (Agenda p.213-218):
Recommendations: The nuclear safety component of AUKUS in particular demands community engagement. It is therefore recommended that Council write to the relevant local State and Federal MPs and Ministers advising them of Council’s
position that any applications for licencing for the management, storage or disposal of radioactive waste ‘facilities’ and ‘activities’ at the AUKUS operations at the Osborne Naval Shipyard should be subject to full community engagement; and,
opposition to the permanent storage or disposal of low-level radioactive waste and, any temporary or permanent storage or disposal of medium and high-level radioactive waste in the AUKUS facilities at Osborne Naval Shipyard. (p.217-218)
However, the AUKUS Regulations disrespects PAE’s opposition by taking up powers to impose radioactive waste storage at Osborne regardless of the will of the local community.
Premier Rann passed Laws that prohibits the storage of nuclear reactor waste at Osborne:
Hon Mike Rann AC CNZM, Premier of SA from March 2002 through to 2011, passed Labor amendments to expand public interest protections in nuclear reactor waste prohibitions in SA.
Federal Labor’s intended decades of storage of AUKUS N-sub reactor radioactive wastes at Osborne, promoted by current SA Labor State Government, is illegal – against the Law – in SA.
Following years of silence and secrecy from federal and state Labor over the illegality of their plans for N-sub waste storage at Osborne, the AUKUS Regulations 2025 are to override our legal protections in SA and take up powers to impose N-sub waste storage at Osborne by decree.
AUKUS Minister Richard Marles, Defence, local federal MP the Hon Mark Butler the Minister for Health (also responsible for the ARPANS Agency) and local state MP the Hon Susan Close the Minister for Environment & Water and Deputy Premier in SA, should explain this to community.
They all have an onus to explain the legal context and consequences of passage of the AUKUS Regulations 2025 in a federal override of long-standing public interest protections in SA Law.
In 2000 the SA Liberal Premier John Olsen showed leadership in legislating to prohibit the import, transport, storage and disposal of ‘nuclear waste’ derived from nuclear reactor operations, using a definition prohibiting High-Level and Intermediate Level radioactive wastes. This was a response to PM Howard targeting SA for storage of ANSTO nuclear fuel wastes.
This SA Law, the will of the Parliament and the people, still stands and applies to legally prohibit the storage of AUKUS N-sub nuclear reactor High-Level and Intermediate Level wastes that Minister Marles may seek to target SA with, with a reported focus on the Woomera Area.
In 2002 the incoming SA Labor Premier Mike Rann showed leadership in legislating to expand the range of prohibitions on ‘nuclear waste’ derived from nuclear reactor operations to also cover ‘Low Level’ radioactive wastes (that can require isolation for up to 300 years).
Storage of N-sub nuclear reactor ‘Low Level’ radioactive wastes at Osborne is illegal in SA Law.
Minister Marles AUKUS Regulations 2025 Section 105 is intended to override and set aside these key public interest SA Laws passed under the leadership of Liberal & Labor Premiers.
In the near term, Minister Marles wants to use the proposed draft AUKUS Regulations 2025 to impose storage of so called ‘Low Level’ radioactive waste at Osborne, and in the long-term Minister Marles wants the option to impose storage of AUKUS High-Level wastes onto SA.
Q: where is the political leadership today from the State Labor Government in response to this?
It is undemocratic of a Federal Labor Government to seek to override State and Territory laws, that protect the Health, Safety and Welfare of the People and the Environment in which they live, so as to impose the hazards, risks and impacts in storage of AUKUS N-sub nuclear wastes.
Recommendation:
The undemocratic AUKUS Regulations “Section 105 (3) State and Territory laws that do not apply in relation to a regulated activity” that is intended to take up powers to impose N-sub nuclear reactor wastes which are currently illegal in SA, in the NT, and in WA, must be withdrawn by the AUKUS Minister Richard Marles MP and by Defence.
Recommendations:
Recommendations by David Noonan comprise public interest disclosures that are required by Defence for an informed, transparent and accountable process on AUKUS Regulations 2025.
1. Civil Society faces federal imposition of untenable AUKUS N-sub nuclear waste storage.
Defence must respect affected Australian communities and Indigenous People’s ‘Right to Know’ the nuclear risks they face in imposed AUKUS nuclear waste storage facilities:
1.1 Defence must declare its intention to over-ride the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 to impose AUKUS N-sub reactor nuclear waste storage at Osborne, Port Adelaide.
1.2 Defence must publicly disclose which Australian regions and Indigenous Peoples are currently under consideration for imposed siting and compulsory land acquisition for an AUKUS High-Level nuclear waste storage, and which – if any – existing Defence lands are included in the regional short list that is currently being prepared across SA, the NT and WA.
1.3 Defence must become accountable over the future and fate of the Woomera Area, understood in national media to be a ‘favoured location’ for storage and disposal of AUKUS Nsub nuclear waste (“Woomera looms as national nuclear waste dump site including for AUKUS submarine high-level waste afr.com AFR 11 August 2023).
1.4 Defence must declare its reserved right to override the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 through powers in the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Act 2024 Section.135 “Operation of State and Territory laws” to impose an AUKUS nuclear waste dump on outback lands and unwilling community in SA, by decree through these AUKUS Regulations.
2. Indigenous People have a UN recognised Human Right to Say No to nuclear wastes.
Defence should respect the clear views of Indigenous Labor Senator Patrick Dodson and act to make the AUKUS Regulations consistent with the Recommendations of a Federal Inquiry Report (Nov 2023) into the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, stating:
“the Commonwealth Government ensure its approach to developing legislation and policy on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people be consistent with the Articles outlined in the UNDRIP”.
2.1 Defence must provide a clear disclosure as to whether or not they will commit to respect and comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Article 29 provision of Indigenous Peoples Rights to “Free, Prior and Informed Consent”, as a Right to Say No, over storage or disposal of hazardous materials on their lands – in this case AUKUS HighLevel & Intermediate Level nuclear waste storage.
3. The undemocratic AUKUS Regulations “Section 105 (3) State and Territory laws that do not apply in relation to a regulated activity” that is intended to take up powers to impose Nsub nuclear reactor wastes which are currently illegal in SA, in the NT, and in WA, must be withdrawn by the AUKUS Minister Richard Marles MP and by Defence.
As to my Relevant Background:
In 30 years’ experience scrutinising environment & nuclear public interest issues and providing public input and Recommendations on nuclear waste matters pertinent to these Regulations:
France’s ‘Operation Satanique’ bombing of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior, 40 years ago this month, was state-sponsored terrorism – and Australia had a part in helping French secret agents to escape.
A DECLASSIFIED AUSTRALIA SPECIAL REPORT
The French Government terror bombing of Greenpeace ship, Rainbow Warrior, 40 years ago in Auckland harbour backfired on the French disastrously. It added to mounting Pacific and global pressure to force France 11 years later to abandon nuclear testing on its Pacific island colonies.
Australia’s obstruction of the New Zealand police investigation of the French secret agents who conducted the terror bombing still rankles, 40 years on.
David Robie, the only journalist on board the ship in the weeks leading up to the bombing, looks back on the event and on the legacy of this sordid act of state terrorism in a New Zealand port.
Was dubbed “Blunderwatergate”. This was an apt epithet for the Jacques Tati-like farce marking the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior by French secret agents on 10 July 1985.
And the bungled attempts to cover up the murky trail leading back to the highest levels of government, the military and intelligence in Paris.
It was tragic too. The killing of Greenpeace’s photojournalist Portuguese-born Fernando Pereira that night at Auckland’s Marsden Wharf was a shock to the crew – and to me as a journalist who had been on board documenting the ship’s voyage for 10 weeks.
But we had no illusions about French involvement. The Greenpeace ship had just arrived in Auckland and was preparing for a protest voyage to Moruroa Atoll, in the French Pacific territory of Tahiti, to highlight the French nuclear testing.
A combination of a swift investigation by New Zealand police, and curious bystanders, led to the arrest and charging with murder of two French secret agents from France’s secret service, the Directorate-General for External Security (DGSE). The arrested agents had been posing as Swiss honeymooners in the days that followed the bombing.
A lack of co-operation and actual obstruction by Australian authorities stymied an attempt to arrest four more French DGSE agents who had fled to Australian territory of Norfolk Island.
French terror in Opération Satanique
In a sense it was lucky that the death toll on board the Rainbow Warrior that night wasn’t a lot higher. Fernando had gone below deck after the first blast looking for a missing crew member and to rescue his camera gear.
In their appropriately titled “Opération Satanique”, the French spies used a deadly double detonation to bomb the ship twice, precisely seven minutes apart. This technique has similarities to the now-familiar “double tap” bombing that often results in first responders and rescuers being targeted, and has been described as a war crime as it violates the Geneva Convention by targeting civilians and the wounded.
Fernando died when the second bomb exploded, rapidly flooding the ship further and crippling the propellor shaft just behind his cabin – and next to my own.
Ten other crew members on board scrambled off, some thrown into the water. More people could have died, as several had been asleep after the lively 29th birthday party for campaign co-ordinator Steve Sawyer earlier in the evening.
Some were still chatting in the mess when the first French Naval limpet mine went off, blasting a massive hole the size of a garage door in the hull at the engine room, at 10 minutes to midnight.
There had been no warning from the French to the crew or others on board in this worst case of state terrorism ever to happen in New Zealand. And no warning of the second blast to come.
The final voyage
The man killed in the blast, Fernando Pereira, aged 36 and the father of two young children, was on the Rainbow Warrior’s Pacific voyage almost by chance.
At the beginning of the voyage, co-ordinator Steve Sawyer had been seeking a wirephoto machine for transmitting photographs to the world of the campaign voyage to the Marshall Islands.
He phoned Fiona Davies, then heading the Greenpeace photo office in Paris. But he wanted the machine and a photographer separately.
“No, no – I’ll get you a wire machine,” replied Davies. “But you’ll have to take my photographer with it.”
So Fernando Pereira joined the Rainbow Warrior in Hawai’i and he covered the voyage to Rongelap Atoll in the Marshall Islands The islanders there wanted help to leave their contaminated ancestral home, and in May 1985, Greenpeace’s ship, the Rainbow Warrior, set out to help them.
They suffered serious health problems because of radioactive fallout that had dusted their island home from at least five “dirty” US nuclear bomb tests in the 1950s. Marshall Islands, 3500kms north-east of Australia, had been occupied by US forces since WW2, and in 1979 voted to exercise sovereignty in a Compact in Free Association with the United States.
The 15-megaton “Bravo” test on 1 March 1954, a thousand times more powerful than the US atomic bomb that devastated Hiroshima, was the most lethal to the islanders. Hundreds of people were living on the downwind atolls of Rongelap, Rongerik and Utirik, barely 150km to the east. They are left with a deadly legacy of thyroid tumours, cancers, still births, and a host of other illnesses.
Neglected by both the US and Marshall Islands authorities, and despite losing their homes and much cultural heritage, the islanders urged the Greenpeace flagship to evacuate them to Mejatto on Kwajalein Atoll, 120km away.
It took four return voyages for the Rainbow Warrior to move about 320 Rongelapese with their dismantled homes and belongings — some hundreds of tonnes — to their new atoll.
Their future and their health remain uncertain four decades after Greenpeace helped them. But the media spotlight on the humanitarian voyage helped pressure the US to partially make amends.
The US did provide US$150 million as part of the agreement for the Compact of Free Association, to establish a Nuclear Claims Tribunal to deal with health claims over the testing. Established in 1988, the Tribunal ran out of funds in 2011 and ceased to function.
It also provided US$45 million to the Rongelap people to “clean up” the atoll – but so far just one of 60 islands has been cleaned up. The islanders are debating a return to their homeland of Rongelap, but many are not convinced that their atoll is safe yet.
Australian involvement in Opération Satanique
One aspect of the police investigation that rankled with New Zealanders was the lack of co-operation verging on obstruction by Australian authorities. This was the pursuit of the DGSE agents posing as the crew of the yacht Ouvéa that had been chartered in New Caledonia and was suspected of smuggling the explosives into New Zealand.
On 15 July, five days after the deadly bombing, a team of eight New Zealand detectives — including two French speakers — and a forensic scientist on the hunt for the fleeing French agents, were flown in a New Zealand Air Force plane to Australia’s Norfolk Island.
They interviewed the three crew on board (they missed the leader Dr Xavier Maniguet, who had earlier managed to fly to Sydney) – DGSE agents Chief Petty Officer Roland Verge, 32; Petty Officer Gerald Andries, 32; and Petty Officer Jean-Michael Barcelo, 33. They all claimed to be “tourists”.
The next day the detectives searched the Ouvéa, took scrapings from the yacht’s bilges to check for explosives, and seized documents. They also found a map of Auckland with a near-harbour Ponsonby address of a Greenpeace member handwritten on it – later shown to be a map sent by the French spy Christine Cabon, who had infiltrated Greenpeace, to the DGSE. She later fled to Israel, but managed to elude a New Zealand detective who tracked her down.
The 11-metre yacht the Ouvéa had been secretly chartered by the “covert action” arm of the DGSE French spy agency, to carry the two limpet bombs, the diving gear, a zodiac dingy, and radios and other gear to Auckland harbour.
The information collected after analysis produced enough evidence to charge the three agents with murder on the same basis as the two DGSE agents already arrested, but the New Zealand police needed time for the analytics, and even the passport checks took five days.
However, the Australian police and immigration officials on Norfolk Island, without doubt operating under instructions from Canberra (where the Bob Hawke Labor Government was in power), would not allow extra time for holding the suspects.
They gave New Zealand police just one day — an impossible deadline of 2pm on 16 July — and after that the yacht crew and their boat were free to depart, unimpeded by Australian authorities.
By the time the New Zealand police had obtained arrest warrants for the arrest of the Ouvéa crew on 26 July on charges of arson and murder, they and their boat had already sailed away from Australian territory.
Australian assistance to the French may have been more than mere obstruction.
A former head of DGSE in his memoir admitted to many covert sabotage and espionage operations against Greenpeace. He described how its “traditional allies” had ”on several occasions” been informed of plans for covert operations and had either lent a hand or “turned a blind eye on such-and-such a day”.
Whether Australia’s intelligence agencies also directly assisted the French with intelligence, surveillance, or preparations for carrying out the bombing, or in the escape of their agents, is unclear.
Tahitian sources said the DGSE agents, after being released by Australian authorities from Norfolk Island, had rendezvoused with the French Navy’s nuclear-powered attack submarine Rubis which was used for Special Forces deployment and surveillance, and had been conveniently deployed to the Coral Sea area.
The Ouvéa yacht was then scuttled. An empty life raft was detected in the area shortly after by a New Zealand Air Force P-3 Orion surveillance plane dispatched to hunt for the yacht and for the French submarine known to be in the area. The DGSE agents were landed ashore from the submarine at the French Pacific territory of Tahiti.
Four other French agents remained undetected in New Zealand. One of the agents nonchalantly flew out unimpeded through Sydney, while the others laid low under cover for two weeks before quietly slipping out of the country.
French state violence against Greenpeace
So why was the Rainbow Warrior bombed? Many in the French military were blinded by an intense paranoia over Greenpeace and other activists working to highlight nuclear testing in the South Pacific and in supporting independence struggles in their Pacific colonies.
The French secret service, the DGSE, was given a free hand by Defence Minister Charles Hernu to “neutralise” the environmental organisation.
The French prime minister at the time, Laurent Fabius, claimed in a TVNZ interview in 2005 that he had been “betrayed” by his defence minister. Hernu died in 1990 – still popular in France over the bombing.
The sabotage attack on the Rainbow Warrior certainly wasn’t out of character with many other brutal actions taken by French authorities against Greenpeace vessels protesting against nuclear testing in the Pacific.
In 1973, for example, French commandos boarded the Greenpeace yacht Vega off Moruroa Atoll and savagely beat two of the crew, including one of the founders of Greenpeace, David McTaggart, who almost lost an eye.
McTaggart filed a civil action against the French Navy, accusing it of piracy. The Paris court found the Navy guilty of having deliberately rammed the Vega.
In 1995, Greenpeace led another flotilla to Moruroa. Ten years after the lethal bombing in Auckland, French commandos boarded the Rainbow Warrior II, smashed equipment, fired tear gas at crew on the ship’s bridge, arrested Greenpeace activists, and seized the ship.
France only returned the vessel to Greenpeace several months later.
And I also had my personal run-ins with French authorities as a journalist covering environmental and independence issues in the 1980s.
In January 1987, a year after the first edition of my book, Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage of the Rainbow Warrior, was published, I was arrested at gunpoint by French troops in the French Pacific territory of New Caledonia /Kanaky, near the New Caledonian village of Canala.
The arrest followed a week of being tailed by secret agents in the capital, Nouméa. When I was handed over by the military to local gendarmes for interrogation, accusations of my being a “spy” and questions over my book on the _Rainbow Warrior_bombing were made in the same breath.
After about four hours of questioning by the gendarmes, I was released.
Greenpeace, after being awarded $8 million in compensation — but no apology — from France by the International Arbitration Tribunal, finally towed the Rainbow Warrior to Matauri Bay and scuttled her off Motutapere, in the Cavalli Islands in northern New Zealand on 12 December 1987, to create a living reef.
Her namesake, the Rainbow Warrior II, formerly the Grampian Fame, was launched in Hamburg exactly four years after the bombing, to continue the environmental advocacy work
Cutting a deal
The diplomatic pressure from France heaped upon New Zealand to release the DGSE agents was huge. A deal was finally agreed but it sparked almost as much anger in New Zealand as the bombing itself, when France threatened to block trade access to New Zealand’s European markets.
The compensation deal for New Zealand, mediated in 1986 by then UN secretary-general Javier Perez de Cuellar, awarded the government $13 million. The money was used to fund anti-nuclear projects and the Pacific Development and Conservation Trust.
The compensation agreement and an apology by France was in exchange for the deportation of the two jailed DGSE secret agents, Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur (“the honeymooners”), after they had served less than a year of their 10-year sentences for manslaughter and wilful damage of the bombed ship.
They were transferred to Hao Atoll in French Polynesia to serve three years in exile at a “Club Med”-style nuclear and military base.
But the bombing scandal didn’t end there. The same day as the “burial at sea” of the Rainbow Warrior in 1987, the French government told New Zealand that Mafart had a “serious stomach complaint”.
French authorities repatriated him to France – in defiance of the terms of the UN agreement and protests from David Lange’s Labour Government.
It was later claimed by a Tahitian newspaper, Les Nouvelles, that Mafart was being smuggled out of Tahiti on a false passport hours before New Zealand was even told of his “illness”.
The other French agent, Prieur, was also repatriated to France in May 1988 because she was pregnant. France ignored protests by the New Zealand Government, and the secret agent pair were honoured, decorated and promoted in their homeland.
A supreme irony is that such an act of terrorism should be publicly rewarded, given the past two decades efforts against terrorism in the so-called “war on terror”.
Satanique mea culpa
In May 2005, the French agents’ lawyer, Gerard Currie, tried to block footage of their 1985 guilty pleas in the New Zealand High Court — shown on closed circuit to journalists, including myself, at the time but not seen publicly — from being broadcast in TVNZ’s Sunday program.
Losing the High Court ruling, the DGSE ‘s lawyer appealed against the footage being broadcast. But the two former agents had lost any spurious claim to privacy over the act of terrorism by publishing their own memoirs – Agent Secrete (Prieur, 1995) and Carnets Secrets (Mafart, 1999).
More than three decades after the bombing, in September 2015, the French secret agent who planted the French Naval limpet mines on the hull of the Rainbow Warrior, “outed” himself and apologised to Greenpeace, the Pereira family, and the people of New Zealand, describing the operation as a “big, big failure”.
Colonel Kister revealed that an early French proposal to merely damage the ship’s engine in Auckland Harbour was rejected.
“There was a willingness at a high level to say: ‘This has to end once and for all. We need to take radical measures’.
“We were told we had to sink it,” Kister said in the interview.
“I have the blood of an innocent man on my conscience, and that weighs on me. We are not cold-blooded killers. My conscience led me to apologise and explain myself.”
The legacy of nuclear resistance
Bengt Danielsson, a Swedish anthropologist, and his French wife, Marie-Thérèse, were an inspiration to the nuclear-free and independent Pacific movement, especially in the Cook Islands, New Zealand and Tahiti.
Along with Elaine Shaw of Greenpeace Aotearoa, they played a vital role in raising public awareness of the plight of Tahitians harmed by the years of French atmospheric nuclear tests.
While the Danielssons published several scientific studies and popular books on the islands, including _Moruroa, Mon Amour_ and Poisoned Reign, they constantly campaigned to expose French nuclear colonialism.
They were honoured for their commitment and achievements with Bengt being awarded the Right Livelihood Award, an alternative Nobel Peace Prize-style international recognition, “exposing the tragic results of and advocating an end to French nuclear colonialism”.
However, Bengt Danielsson’s health deteriorated after this honour and he died in July 1997, barely a year after French nuclear testing in the Gambier Islands ended for good. Marie-Thérèse died six years later in 2003.
France agreed to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty after a swansong package of eight planned nuclear tests to provide data for simulation computer software.
However, such was the strength of international hostility and protests and riots in Pape’ete that Paris ended the nuclear program after just six tests. France officially ratified the CTBT on 10 September 1996.
Elaine Shaw worked for Greenpeace Aotearoa for 16 years and developed it with a core group into the small but lively movement it had become by the time of the bombing.
But she was not comfortable with the changes and rapid growth of the organisation after the bombing. She worked tirelessly for the people of Rongelap as well as “French” Polynesia, the victims of nuclear testing until she died of cancer in 1990.
“I sensed that her interest stemmed from her concern for the people rather than any political ideology,” said Tahitian activist Tea Hirshon. “She went to many islands and saw for herself what people in the Pacific wanted.”
Still other Greenpeace stalwarts have died since the Rainbow Warrior bombing, including Warrior of the Rainbow author and journalist Robert Hunter (2005), founding president of Greenpeace; and David McTaggart (2004), for many years the inspirational chairman of Greenpeace International.
Kawhia-based Owen Wilkes, who had joined a Vega voyage to the Cook Islands in mid-1986, and Fijian nuclear-free and independent Pacific campaigner Amelia Rokotuivuna, both also died in 2005.
The campaign co-ordinator of the fatal voyage, Steve Sawyer, died of pneumonia caused by lung cancer in 2019. One of the crew members on the Rongelap mission, the Rainbow Warrior’s chief engineer Davey Edward, also died of cancer in 2021.
The best possible memorial for Elaine Shaw, Amelia Rokotuivuna, Owen Wilkes, the Danielssons and other Pacific campaigners came in 2004 when Tahitians elected Oscar Temaru as their territorial President.
He had established the first nuclear-free municipality in the Pacific Islands when he was mayor of the Pape’ete suburb of Faa’a.
Since the Temaru coalition came to power, demands increased for a full commission of inquiry to investigate new evidence of radiation exposure from the atmospheric tests in the Gambiers in French Polynesia from 1966-1974.
Altogether France carried out 193 nuclear tests in the South Pacific, 46 of them dumping more than nine megatons of explosive energy into the atmosphere – 42 over Moruroa, and four over Fangataufa atolls.
The investigators trawled some 2000 pages of declassified documents and carried out scores of interviews, concluding that French authorities consistently underestimated the scale of the impact on the environment, geology and the health of the islanders of the French nuclear testing in Polynesia.
The CEA produced its own booklet, “Nuclear tests in French Polynesia: why, how and with what consequences”, printed 5000 copies, and distributed these around Pacific countries.
However, the pressure on France to atone for its actions will continue.
From death springs life
The sordid Rainbow Warrior affair was a diplomatic debacle for the French, and it has taken years for Paris to recover some mana — spiritual power and authority — in the South Pacific region.
Greenpeace and the general environmental movement have grown dramatically and matured over the past four decades. Greenpeace is currently operating Rainbow Warrior III as its campaign flagship.
Campaigns have broadened from the dangers of nuclear power, into issues such as the climate crisis, driftnet fisheries, genetic engineering, glacier retreat, the illegal rainforest timber trade, and now the growing threat of deep sea mining industry.
The original Rainbow Warrior’s last voyage and the death of Fernando Pereira were not in vain. The struggle lives on. Republished from Declassified Australia, 1 July 2025
Australia has offered a lifeline to the people of Tuvalu, whose island is threatened by rising sea levels. But the deal comes with strings attached – and there will be millions more climate migrants in need of refuge by 2050
A lifeline has been extended to the people of Tuvalu, a low-lying Pacific nation where rising sea levels are creating ever more problems. Each year, Australia will grant residency to 280 Tuvaluans. The agreement could see everyone currently living in Tuvalu move within just a few decades.
Effectively the world’s first climate migration agreement, the Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union will also provide adaptation funds to help those who stay behind.
Is this a model for how climate migration can be managed in an orderly way, before disaster strikes? Far from it. To get this deal, Tuvalu must allow Australia a say in future security and defence matters. Few other countries are likely to agree to similar terms.
Tuvalu’s population is also very small. Taking in around 10,000 climate migrants would be inconsequential for a country of 28 million like Australia. Worldwide, it is estimated that between 25 million and 1 billion people might be forced to move by 2050 because of climate change and other environmental factors. Where will they go?
Many argue that the wealthy countries that emitted most of the carbon dioxide that is warming the planet have a moral duty to help people displaced by climate change. But these kinds of discussions have yet to be translated into the necessary legal recognition or acceptance of forced climate migrants. On the contrary, many higher-income nations seem to be becoming more hostile to migrants of any kind.
There has been a little progress in setting up “loss and damage” funds to compensate lower-income countries for the destruction caused by global warming. This could help limit the need for climate migration in the future – but the money promised so far is a fraction of what is required.
The most important thing nations should be doing is limiting future warming by cutting emissions – but globally these are still growing. Sadly, the Falepili Union is a drop in the ocean, not a turning of the tide.
Leaked documents seen by independent investigative outlet Declassified Australia reveal that Australia has exported F-35 joint strike fighter parts directly to Israel as recently as this week.
Parts and components for Israel’s F-35 fighter jets are being exported directly to Israel from Australia, despite repeated government denials of the trade, Declassified Australia revealed in a significant story it published last night.
These exports present clear evidence of the Australian government’s complicity in Israel’s war crimes.
Declassified Australia reported that it had sighted shipping records detailing goods sent on two recent flights from Sydney to Tel Aviv. It is unclear whether the documents simply show two individual shipments or are a glimpse of a bigger Australian direct export trade of F-35 parts to Israel.
This is the first concrete information of parts for Israel’s F-35 fighter jets being sent directly from Australia to Israel, some 21 months after 7 October 2023. It is evidence the Australian government can no longer deny or disguise.
Israel’s F-35s have been used to commit war crimes in Gaza, including airstrikes on designated safe zones that have killed hundreds of people. The fighter jets were also deployed during Israel’s recent illegal airstrikes on Iran.
Refresher: our 2024 reporting on Australia’s F-35 exports
Last year Undue Influence reported extensively on Australia’s export of parts and components into Lockheed Martin’s F-35 global supply chain and the Australian government’s misleading public commentary around this.
Most of our reports were also published by Declassified Australia, which was established in 2021 by investigative journalists Peter Cronau and Antony Loewenstein to publish in-depth and largely hidden stories that reveal the reality of Australia’s relationships with both democracies and dictatorships.
Our reporting below is referred to in the latest Declassified Australia article.
The UN has named dozens of multinationals in a report for profiting from Israel’s genocide in Gaza. . Stephanie Tran reports.
A landmark United Nations report has named dozens of multinational corporations that are aiding and profiting from Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, accusing them of complicity in war crimes and calling for urgent accountability.
Authored by Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the report details the role of weapons manufacturers, tech firms, energy companies and financial institutions in sustaining an “economy of occupation turned genocidal.”
But the list of named companies is just the beginning. Albanese describes the report as “the tip of the iceberg,” noting that more than 1,000 corporate entities were investigated for their involvement in Israel’s war machinery.
Weapons and warfare
At the centre of Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza is a heavily militarised economy supported by Western weapons manufacturers.
U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin is identified as a central player, providing F-35 and F-16 fighter jets that have enabled Israel to drop an estimated 85,000 tonnes of bombs since October 2023. Their use has left more than 179,000 Palestinians dead or injured and destroyed vast swathes of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure.
According to the report, the F-35 program represents Israel’s largest-ever defence procurement project, involving over 1,650 companies.
Israel’s own arms manufacturers are also central to the genocide. Elbit Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries, two of the country’s top weapons companies, are responsible for much of the surveillance, drone and targeting systems deployed in Gaza.
The report notes that Israel’s repeated military campaigns have made it a testing ground for emerging weapons technologies. These systems are later marketed as “battle-proven”
At the centre of Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza is a heavily militarised economy supported by Western weapons manufacturers.
U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin is identified as a central player, providing F-35 and F-16 fighter jets that have enabled Israel to drop an estimated 85,000 tonnes of bombs since October 2023. Their use has left more than 179,000 Palestinians dead or injured and destroyed vast swathes of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure.
According to the report, the F-35 program represents Israel’s largest-ever defence procurement project, involving over 1,650 companies.
Israel’s own arms manufacturers are also central to the genocide. Elbit Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries, two of the country’s top weapons companies, are responsible for much of the surveillance, drone and targeting systems deployed in Gaza.
The report notes that Israel’s repeated military campaigns have made it a testing ground for emerging weapons technologies. These systems are later marketed as “battle-proven”
Independent journalist and author Antony Loewenstein — whose award-winning book, podcast and film series The Palestine Laboratory exposes how Israel’s occupation has become a global model for repression — told MWM:
“This landmark report goes to the heart of why Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine has lasted so long; the longest in modern times. Far too many corporations and individuals are making money from oppression. I’m honoured that the report frequently cites my work, The Palestine Laboratory, a book, podcast and film series that details how Israel’s occupation is a key model and inspiration for many around the world.”
“Cutting off Israel’s financial lifeline is the only way that this abomination will end.”
Surveillance and Silicon Valley
The UN report devotes substantial attention to the role of Silicon Valley in enabling Israel’s high-tech war.
Palantir Technologies, the U.S. surveillance firm founded by Peter Thiel, expanded its support for the Israeli military after October 2023. The company has provided “automatic predictive policing technology, core defence infrastructure for rapid and scaled-up construction and deployment of military software, and its Artificial Intelligence Platform, which allows real-time battlefield data integration for automated decision-making.”
In January 2024, Palantir’s board met in Tel Aviv “in solidarity”. In April 2024, CEO Alex Karp dismissed concerns about civilian casualties by stating that Palantir had killed “mostly terrorists.”
Microsoft operates its largest research centre outside the U.S. in Israel, and has been “integrating its systems and civilian tech across the Israeli military since 2003”. In October 2023, Microsoft’s Azure platform supported the Israeli military’s overloaded cloud systems. According to an Israeli colonel quoted in the report, “cloud tech is a weapon in every sense of the word.”
Amazon and Google, through their $1.2 billion Project Nimbus contract, provide Israel with core cloud infrastructure for the military and government agencies.
IBM, which has operated in Israel since 1972, has operated the central database of the Population and Immigration Authority, “enabling collection, storage and governmental use of biometric data on Palestinians, and supporting the discriminatory permit regime of Israel.”
Hewlett-Packard (HP) “has long enabled the apartheid systems of Israel,” supplying technology to the military, prison system, and police.
NSO Group, infamous for its Pegasus spyware, is cited as a textbook case of “spyware diplomacy.” Founded by former Israeli intelligence officers, the company has licensed its tools to repressive governments worldwide and used them to surveil Palestinian activists, journalists, and human rights defenders.
Financing Occupation
The financial industry underpins much of the infrastructure of occupation and genocide. Israeli treasury bonds, underwritten by global banks such as Barclays and BNP Paribas, have provided critical financing to the Israeli government. Asset managers like Blackrock, Vanguard and Allianz’s PIMCO were among more than 400 investors from 36 countries to purchase these bonds.
Blackrock and Vanguard are also among the largest shareholders in Lockheed Martin, Palantir, Microsoft, Amazon, and Chevron. Their funds distribute these investments across global markets via ETFs and mutual funds, spreading complicity to millions of unwitting investors.
Energy and resources
Glencore and Drummond Company dominate coal exports to Israel, primarily from Colombia and South Africa. Even after Colombia announced a suspension of coal exports to Israel in 2024, shipments continued through subsidiaries.
Chevron, which supplies over 70% of Israel’s energy, paid $453 million in royalties and taxes to the Israeli government in 2023. The company profits from the Leviathan and Tamar gas fields and owns a stake in the East Mediterranean Gas pipeline, which passes through occupied Palestinian maritime territory.
BP, the British energy giant, expanded its presence in 2025 with new exploration licences in maritime zones off the Gaza coast, areas Israel occupies in violation of international law.
Machinery
Heavy machinery has long played a role in Israel’s occupation through the demolition of Palestinian homes and the construction of illegal settlements.
Caterpillar Inc. has supplied the Israeli military with bulldozers used to demolish Palestinian homes and infrastructure. Since October 2023, Caterpillar equipment has been used to “carry out mass demolitions – including of homes, mosques and life-sustaining infrastructure – raid hospitals and burying alive wounded Palestinians”. In 2025, the company signed another multi-million-dollar contract with Israel.
Heavy machinery producers Volvo and HD Hyundai have also been linked to the destruction of Palestinian property. After October 2023, Israel increased the use of this equipment, levelling entire districts in Gaza, including Rafah and Jabalia. The Israeli military reportedly obscured the logos of the machinery during these operations.
Volvo is also tied to the settlement economy through its joint ownership of Merkavim, a bus manufacturer serving Israeli colonies.
Shipping, Tourism and Logistics
Multinational logistics firms are another key part of the war economy. A.P. Moller–Maersk, the Danish shipping conglomerate, is responsible for transporting weapons parts, military equipment, and raw materials to Israel. Since October 2023, the company has facilitated the continued flow of US-supplied arms.
Tourism platforms like Airbnb and Booking.com are profiting from the settlement project. Booking.com listings in the West Bank have increased from 26 in 2018 to 70 in 2023; Airbnb listings have grown from 139 in 2016 to 350 in 2025. These platforms promote illegal settlements while restricting Palestinian access to land and resources.
Calls for sanctions
Albanese’s report is a damning indictment, not only of Israel’s genocide in Gaza but of the global political and economic architecture that enables it. The evidence it presents leaves no ambiguity, multinational corporations are not peripheral actors but central to the machinery of occupation, apartheid and now genocide.
Albanese urged states to impose a full arms embargo on Israel, halt all trade and investment ties with companies implicated in violations of international law, and freeze the assets of individuals and entities facilitating human rights abuses.
She called on the International Criminal Court and national courts to investigate and prosecute corporate executives for their role in war crimes and for laundering the proceeds of genocide.
To cool down, nuclear power plants pump water from local rivers or the sea, which they then release back into water bodies at a higher temperature. However, this process can threaten local biodiversity if water is released which is too hot.
Due to a scorching heatwave which has spread across Europe in recent days, a number of nuclear power plants in Switzerland and France have been forced to either reduce activity or shut down completely as extreme temperatures have prevented sites from relying on water from local rivers.
To cool down, nuclear power plants pump water from local rivers or the sea, which they then release back into water bodies at a higher temperature.
However, Europe’s ongoing heatwave means that the water pumped by nuclear sites is already very hot, impacting the ability of nuclear plants to use it to cool down. On top of this, nuclear sites run the risk of posing a dangerous threat to local biodiversity, by releasing water which is too hot into rivers and seas.
In light of the heat, Axpo – which operates the Beznau nuclear power plant in Switzerland – said it had shut down one of its reactors on Tuesday, adding that a second reactor was operating at limited capacity.
“Due to the high river water temperatures, Axpo has been increasingly reducing the output of the two reactor units at the Beznau nuclear power plant for days and reduced it to 50 per cent on Sunday,” said the operator.
The Beznau nuclear power plant’s reactors are located directly on the River Aare, where temperatures have reached 25 degrees Celsius in recent days, leading Axpo to curtail its activities to prevent “excessive warming of the already warm water” which could strain local biodiversity.
Although Switzerland has decided to phase out nuclear power by 2033, existing plants are able to continue to operate as long as they are safe.
Meanwhile, on Monday French electricity company EDF shut down the Golfech nuclear power plant, located in the southern department of Tarn-et-Garonne, amid extreme heat warnings in the region and concerns that the local river could heat up to 28 degrees, even without the inflow of heated cooling water.
France has a total of 57 active nuclear reactors in 18 power plants. According to EDF, the country obtains around 65% of its electricity from nuclear energy, which the government considers to be environmentally friendly.
Output has also been reduced at other sites, including at the Blayais nuclear power plant in western France, as well as the Bugey nuclear power plant in southern France, which could also be shut down, drawing their cooling water from the Gironde and Rhône rivers.
Although the production of nuclear power has had to be curtailed in light of extreme heat, the impact on France’s energy grid remains limited, despite the fact that more electricity is being used to cool buildings and run air conditioning systems.
Speaking to broadcaster FranceInfo, French grid operator RTE ensured that “all the nuclear power sites which are running are able to cover the needs of the French population. France produces more electricity than it consumes, as it currently exports electricity to neighbouring countries.”
A Melbourne company is recruiting Australians to work on a mysterious Israeli and American-backed aid project in Gaza. Could it be the infamous Gaza Humanitarian Foundation?
An ad posted by Claymore Personnel – named after an anti-personnel landmine – promises that successful candidates will “be looked after.”
Workers will have accommodation expenses in Israel covered, operate in American-led teams, and receive payment in US dollars.
While it remains impossible to verify exactly who Claymore is working with, the shortlist of aid agencies that fit Claymore’s description ranges from bad to worse.
There is precisely one self-described ‘aid agency’ thriving in Gaza right now, and that is the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). Fogbow lags in a distant second place.
The Israeli and American governments back both agencies; both agencies rely on private security contractors to distribute aid; both agencies’ founders are American military and intelligence officials; both have been implicated in massacres at Gaza aid sites.
Before GHF had begun its Gaza operations on May 27, it was already the subject of condemnation in a joint statement issued by aid agencies. The letter condemned GHF as “a dangerous and politicised sham” and “a blueprint for ethnic cleansing”.
Claymore posted ads on seek.com and on its official website on May 28, a day after GHF hit the ground. The first batch of recruits left for Gaza two weeks later.
Reports of massacres at sites of American-led aid projects did not dampen Claymore’s spirits. Its mission to recruit carried on throughout June, with the ad saying workers deployed to Gaza will have a “3-month contract with strong potential for multiple extensions”.
While most aid sites in Gaza were closing down, prospects for Claymore’s partners were expanding. “A large humanitarian distribution centre is now operating in Gaza”, Claymore’s ad said.
The recruitment agency sought Australian labourers, truck drivers, and forklift operators willing to work for low wages paid in USD ($3250-$6000 monthly). Successful candidates enjoyed full travel sponsorships. The ad on Claymore’s website assured applicants that there would be no police checks. The seek.com ad said otherwise.
On each workday, the workers would be provided with “secure transport” from Israeli accommodation to worksites at “secure zones” in Gaza.
MWM spoke to Senator Mehreen Faruqi, the Greens Spokesperson for International Aid, who condemned “any so-called ‘humanitarian’ effort that operates at the whim of the genocidal Israeli military”.
“I’m concerned that Australian companies appear to be inserting themselves into a brutal system where ‘aid’ is delivered at gunpoint, guarded by soldiers and private contractors, while starving Palestinians are forced to risk their lives just to access basic supplies.”
Chasing ghosts
Tracking yesterday’s leftover footprints at Bondi Beach is easier than following Claymore’s digital footprints.
The LinkedIn profile of the company’s sole director, Tanya Molloy, provides no information beyond her role at the small business, which was founded in 2023. Trusted aid agencies and union officials told MWM on background they were not aware of Claymore, nor of any project it may be associated with in Gaza.
The recruitment agency’s address is listed as CSS Partners, a small accounting firm in Keilor East, Victoria. MWM called CSS’s landline and asked to be put through to Claymore. The receptionist said they were not aware that Claymore had listed its address as CSS Partners, and that the company’s relations were with an accounting firm to a client.
An associate of MWM visited the address listed on government records as Claymore’s principal place of business in Altona North, Victoria.
“It is in a large, remote industrial area,” was the report back from the Altona North office. “There is no sign or even a number on a door. I think it’s empty.”
Playing mum against dad
Tanya Molloy lives with Claymore’s secretary, the American-born Calum McEwan, in a suburban Melbourne townhouse.
When MWM asked Molloy who Claymore was working with, she was coy.
“Claymore Personnel is a recruitment agency only — we are not involved in the political, logistical, or operational aspects of any aid delivery. We supply skilled workers for overseas roles, and once placed, our involvement ends. We’re not affiliated with any government, military, or aid organisation.”
Due to the sensitivity of the work and the well-being of those on the ground, I won’t be commenting further.”
Text messages leaked to MWM raise doubts about Molloy’s firm assertion that Claymore has no association with GHF.
“The company the candidates will be working for is JK International – jkiglobal.com”, Calum McEwan said, in a response to a concerned humanitarian last month.
When the recipient of the texts asked McEwan if JK International works for GHF, McEwan responded “I don’t have this information.”
Claymore’s ad says it is “the only Australian contact point for this operation”, after being “personally engaged by [an] international logistics group”.
JK International is a global logistics and shipping company based in Tennessee, USA. Its business partners include the USA’s Department of Homeland Security and Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, as well as Israel’s largest shipping company, Zim – a key player in the global weapons supply chain.
Supply and demand
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is wanted for arrest by the International Criminal Court for charges of war crimes, including ‘starvation of civilians as a method of warfare’.
Rather than heeding calls to obey international law, Israel has doubled down. Israel says it has no obligation to provide aid to Palestinians, given its allegations that Hamas steals aid at gunpoint and has infiltrated the United Nations.
Israel’s parliament passed sweeping restrictions on aid agencies working in Gaza. UNWRA and UNICEF were banned from delivering aid into the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in breach of orders issued by the International Court of Justice.
Any worker or organisation that has expressed the wrong political opinions will be refused entry by Israel. Background checks will ensure workers have never made statements that “delegitimise” Israel or question its identity as “a Jewish and democratic state” ($).
Each Palestinian who receives aid is also vetted to ensure they have no connections, according to Israel’s standards, to a Palestinian resistance group.
A government statement said these changes guarantee aid is distributed “in a manner aligned with Israel’s national interests”.
Funding criminal gangs in Gaza
Instead of trusted agencies, aid is increasingly provided by American private military contractors, as well as Israeli-backed gangs.
Earlier this month, Israeli opposition figure Avigdor Lieberman revealed that Mossad and the Ministry of Defence were arming and funding criminal gangs in Gaza. Further reports reveal security at GHF aid sites is provided by mercenaries from Safe Reach Solutions, a firm founded by former CIA officers.
These reforms weaponised aid to undermine Hamas on a grassroots level.
After reports that Israeli Forces massacred Palestinians at a GHF site in Rafah, Israel released footage that it claimed showed Hamas fighters were responsible. In fact, the footage depicted a different massacre, at a different GHF site, committed by Israeli-backed gangs as they stole aid.
Government declines to answer
Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi called on the Albanese Government to “urgently clarify whether it has had any involvement in authorising or facilitating this project, and whether it has provided any diplomatic, logistical or intelligence support to Claymore Personnel or related actors.”
“DFAT has a clear responsibility to ensure any Australian-linked aid effort operates fully in line with international humanitarian law,” Faruqi said. “That includes not participating in a system where aid is used as a tool of control and oppression.”
Several international humanitarian law organisations cosigned a letter yesterday expressing concern about Gaza’s privatised “humanitarian” operators.
The letter issues a warning to all those involved with GHF — including states, companies, and contracted workers – of their potential liability for complicity in genocide.
MWM spoke to Lara Khider, acting executive director of the Australian Centre for International Justice, which was among the organisations that signed the letter.
“Any recruitment of civilians into areas of conflict or occupied territory must be approached with the utmost caution and transparency,” Khider said. “Particularly where international humanitarian law and the risk of complicity in grave breaches of international law may be engaged.”
“It is imperative that Australian nationals and entities exercise due diligence and avoid any involvement that could directly or indirectly support or legitimise unlawful conduct.”
Another government official told MWM that state funding is directed toward United Nations agencies, the Red Cross and the Red Crescent – but refused to answer if the government supported Claymore or its associates.
MWM asked the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) if it was aware of – and approved – Claymore’s aid project.
To say DFAT dodged the question is to compliment it unfairly for showing grace and dexterity.
“Any Australian travelling overseas for employment should ensure they are not in breach of Australian law and follow all travel advice on Smartraveller,” a department spokesperson said.
To DFAT’s credit, Smartraveller is clearer in its profile on Gaza and Israel: “Do not travel.”
Shayne Chester contributed to research.
Interviewed Israeli soldiers claimed their commanders ordered them to shoot civilians collecting aid at GHF sites. The Military Advocate-General then instructed the IDF to investigate these reported war crimes.
China is building the world’s largest national parks system. A new report from UNESCO shows that girls’ access to education has surged worldwide, with gender parity now in most regions.
The Australian position, along a number of European states, also failed to acknowledge the General Conference Resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (in particular GC(XIXI)/RES/444 and GC(XXIV)/RES/533) declaring that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency.”
The initial statement from Australian government sources was one of constipated caution and clenching wariness. Senator Penny Wong’s time as head of the Department of Trade and Foreign Affairs has always been about how things come out, a process unsatisfyingly uncertain and unyielding in detail. Stick to the safe middle ground and sod the rest. These were the cautionary words of an Australian government spokesperson on June 22: “We have been clear that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program has been a threat to international peace and security.”
That insipid statement was in response to Operation Midnight Hammer, a strike on three nuclear facilities in Iran by the US Air Force, authorised by US President Donald Trump on June 22. With such spectacular violence came the hollow call for diplomatic prudence and restraint. There was an importantdifference: Tehran, not Israel or Washington, would be the subject of scolding. Iran would not be permitted nuclear weapons but jaw jaw was better than war war. “We note the US president’s statement that now is the time for peace,” stated the spokesperson. “The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy.”
Within twenty-four hours, that anodyne position had morphed into one of unconditional approval for what was a breach of the United Nations Charter, notably its injunction against the threatened or actual use of force against sovereign states in the absence of authorisation by the UN Security Council or the necessity of self-defence. “The world has long agreed Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, and we support action to prevent this. That is what this is,” accepted Wong.
This assessment was not only silly but colossally misguided.It would have been an absurd proposition for the US to make the claim that they were under imminent threat of attack, a condition seen as necessary for a pre-emptive strike. This was a naked submission to the wishes of a small, destabilising and sole (undeclared) nuclear power in the Middle East, a modern territorial plunderer celebratory of ethnonational supremacy.
The Australian position, along a number of European states, also failed to acknowledge the General Conference Resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (in particular GC(XIXI)/RES/444 and GC(XXIV)/RES/533) declaring that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency.”
Wong also misrepresented the circumstances under which Iran was told they could negotiate over their nuclear program, erroneously accepting the line from the Trump administration that Tehran had “an opportunity to comply”. Neither the US diplomatic channel, which only permitted a narrow, fleeting corridor for actual negotiations, nor Israel’s wilful distortion of the IAEA’s assessment of Iran’s uranium enrichment plans and prevarication, ever gave chance for a credible resolution.Much like the calamitous, unlawful invasion of Iraq in 2003 by a crew of brigand nations – the merry trio of US, UK and Australia stood out – the autopilot to war was set, scornful of international law.
Wong’s shift from constipated caution to free flow approval for the US attack, with its absent merits and weighty illegalities, was also a craven capitulation to the warmonger class permanently mesmerised by the villain school of foreign relations. This cerebrally challenged view sees few problems with attacking nuclear facilities, the radioactive dangers of doing so, and the merits of a state having them in the first place.
The US attack on Iran found hearty approval among the remnants of the conservative opposition, who tend tospecialise in the view that pursuing a pro-Israeli line, right,wrong, or murderous, is the way to go. Liberal Senator and former Australian ambassador to Israel, David Sharma, thought the Albanese government’s initial response “underwhelming and perplexing,” claiming that support for this shredding of international law “a straightforward position for Australia to adopt.” Sharma is clearly getting rusty on hislaw of nations.
His side of politics is also of the view that the attacked party here – Iran – must forgo any silly notion of self-defence and retaliation and repair to the table of diplomacy in head bowedhumiliation. “We want to see Iran come to the negotiating table to verify where that 400 kilos of enriched uranium is,” stated a very stern opposition home affairs minister, Andrew Hastie. “I’m very glad to see that Penny Wong has essentially endorsed our position and I’m glad we have bipartisanship on this.”
Australia’s response has been that of the weary poltroon. Little has been asked about Canberra’s standout complicity in assisting the US imperium fulfil its global reach when it comes to striking targets. The role of the intelligence signals facility in Pine Gap, cutely and inaccurately called a joint venture, always lends its critical role to directing the US war machine through its heavy reliance on satellite technology. Wong, when asked about the role played by the facility in facilitating the attacks on Iran, had little to say. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was also cold towards disclosing any details. “We are upfront, but we don’t talk about intelligence, obviously. But we’ve made very clear this was unilateral action taken by the United States.”
At least on this occasion, Australia did not add its forces to anillegal adventure, as it all too wilfully did in 2003. Then, Iraq was invaded on the spurious grounds that weapons of mass destruction not only existed but would somehow be used either by the regime of Saddam Hussein or fictional proxies he might eventually supply. History forever shows that no such weapons were found, nor proxies equipped. But the Albanese government has shown not only historical illiteracy but an amnesia on the matter. Unfortunately, it’s the sort of amnesia that has become contagious, afflicting a goodly number of Washington’s satellites, vassals and friendly states.
A court ruling in Australia, an election result in New York and a military setback for Israel, all coming on Tuesday this week, signaled a serious turn of events for Zionism and its supporters, writes Joe Lauria.
The impunity with which Zionism invades and bombs its neighbors and shuts up its critics in Western nations was thrown into question perhaps as never before on Tuesday as Zionism suffered a legal, a political and a military defeat all in one day.
A Military Defeat in the Morning
On Tuesday morning Washington time, President Donald Trump announced that Israel and Iran had agreed to a cessation of hostilities after an 11-day war that saw Israel seriously deplete its air defenses, undermine its economy and suffer the worst damage from enemy fire in memory.
A war that Israel — and especially its prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu — had lusted after for three decades had finally been launched. Netanyahu at last found an American president willing to join him in unprovoked aggression against Iran to extend Israel’s regional dominance well beyond the Jordan River.
That would require the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program and the overthrow of the Iranian government to be replaced by a puppet regime led by Israel and the United States.
Instead, Israel had to cut short the operation despite U.S. involvement because it was not going to plan. U.S. intelligence says the so-far merely civilian nuclear program was only set back a few months and the Iranian government has never been made more secure.
As it touts itself as the most invincible (and “moral”) army, the failure to achieve its goals in Iran and the physical damage it took from Iranian missile and drone attacks makes what just transpired a humiliating military defeat for Zionism.
And though U.S. presidents have privately groused about Israeli leaders before, never has Israel been cursed out before in public by a president, as Trump did on Tuesday morning.
A Legal Defeat in the Evening
Then at 8:15 pm Tuesday, U.S. East Coast time (10:15 am Wednesday in Australia), a federal judge in Sydney found the courage to stand up to the organized thuggery of Zionist lobbies by ruling that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) had succumbed to intense pressure from Israel lobbyists to sack a radio presenter because she shared an instagram post from Human Rights Watch which accurately reported that Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war.
That is the exact charge formally leveled in Netanyahu’s arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Australian judge ruled that the presenter, Antoinette Lattouf, was wrongly dismissed and that the ABC must pay her restitution.
Judge Daryl Rangiah said the ABC had “appease[d] … pro-Israel lobbyists” because Lattouf “held political opinions opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza.” Rangiah said that “the complaints [to the ABC] were an orchestrated campaign by pro-Israel lobbyists to have Ms Lattouf taken off air.”
ABC managing director Hugh Marks apologized to the public on air, saying, “Any undue influence or pressure on ABC management or any of its employees must always be guarded against.”
It was a major setback for a powerful Israel Lobby in a Western nation. These lobbies have been untouchable until now no matter what underhanded tactics they employ to create cover for genocide and wars of aggression by smearing and silencing legitimate critics of Israel.
A Political Defeat in the Night
Still on Tuesday, at around 11 pm in New York City, a Muslim politician who has vowed to arrest Netanyahu based on the ICC warrant if he steps foot in the city while he is mayor, defeated a Democratic Party machine politician in the party’s primary election for mayor.
Despite being repeatedly smeared as an anti-semite, Zohran Mamdani has refused to renounce his strong support for Palestinians, including refusing to retract his labelling of Israel’s war on Gaza “genocide.”
Mamdani’s electoral victory has incensed Zionists everywhere, setting off gnashing of teeth. “NY Democrats have fully embraced Marxism, antisemitism, anti-capitalism, and sheer insanity,” said fanatical Zionist Congresswoman Elise Stefanik. U.S. Rep. Mike Lawler called Mamdani “a radical, antisemitic socialist.”
The election result shows that a sizeable number of voters in the city with the largest population of Jews after Tel Aviv don’t care anymore about the taboos constructed and enforced against criticizing Israel. Israel has their live-streamed genocide to thank for that.
A Beginning, Not an End
Anyone of these events alone would signify a momentous turning of the tide against decades of built-up injustice committed by Israel and its lobby. The baseless smears of anti-semitism are losing their effect. The image of an all-powerful Israeli military is tarnished.
June 24, 2025 may be seen as the day in which fear of Israel was overcome on a scale not seen before. There is a long road ahead filled with enormous obstacles, but this day could usher in an era in which Israel and its enablers are at last held accountable for their many crimes.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette, the London Daily Mail and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times. He is the author of two books, A Political Odyssey, with Sen. Mike Gravel, foreword by Daniel Ellsberg; and How I Lost By Hillary Clinton, foreword by Julian Assange.
Antinuclear 