The prime minister, joined by the special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, said the government would adopt 13 recommendations from her July report, including officially adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. Opponents of the definition say it can be used to conflate antisemitism with legitimate criticism of Israel.
Max Kaiser, executive officer at the Jewish Council of Australia – which was critical of Segal’s report in July – said cracking down on protests and universities risked creating further division.
Kaiser said “a law and order response, or top-down response is not actually going to be effective”.
“What we need is solutions that empower grassroots community efforts across different communities and across different faiths and cultures,” he said.
The NSW Council for Civil Liberties said it held concerns the changes could be used to justify preventing pro-Palestine protests against the actions of the Israeli government.
“Endorsing this report at this time is capitulating to those who are trying to conflate what we saw at Bondi with some of our broader questions around [opposing] the actions of the Israeli government, as opposed to being antisemitism,” the council’s president, Tim Roberts, said.
The crux of the issue is major Israel lobby groups would wish to define anti-semitism as any kind of criticism of the Israeli state.
This is a major issue when you have religion and politics so entwined. There is no clear case on the entire planet for why a theocratic country is a really bad thing.
Hate speech is already well defined and illegal.
inciting violence is already illegal.
Terrorism is already illegal.
We do not need any more laws policing speech.
We need to clamp down on social media whose algorithms tuned for engagement are radicalising vulnerable people.
And we need to step up with enforcing the laws we have already on the books.
Yeah. This is basically what it means to officially adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism
If you look at the history of those efforts they constantly shift the goal posts.
It's no longer about Holocaust remembrance; it's become solely about insulating this Israeli state from valid criticism (creating the conditions for their own concentration camps, and their own genocide).
The Holocaust was horrific, but having your people almost genocided by a madman 80+ years ago shouldn't be some get out of jail free card.
Especially when the thing you’re trying to get out of jail for is because you have a leader who is a madman themselves genociding another group.
I know it's probably not an intentional thing, but I'm just going to call this out here - the definition of genocide does not require an entire group of people to be wiped out, merely an "intention to destroy a group in whole or in part". So there's nothing "almost" about the genocide that was the holocaust. Likewise, we need to call out those who seek to downplay the genocide in Gaza because Israel "didn't kill all Gazans".
Australia already recognises the IHRA definitions as of 2021.
And we don't need Israel controlling our funding to universities, or anything at all tbh
Why we support a religious ethnostate is beyond me.
Yes especially given the fact that Australia is a secular and far more diverse and cosmopolitan society than Israel will ever be nor wishes to be.
The ethnostate thing is the least concerning aspect (there are plenty of ethnostates and states with questionable political structures). The issue is that they are an invader and occupier, enforcing an apartheid system on a subjugated group of people. How we could consider a country like this as a "friend" and consistently portray them as "democratic" or "sharing our values" is beyond me.
It's crazy to me that as Australians we can criticise our own government but criticism of another government, no matter how valid, is off limits.
Not only that, but suggesting that advocates for this policy are prioritising Israel over Australia falls under the definition of anti-semitism that will be adopted by our government.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills with social media and tabloid media being ignored in all this.
Social media companies especially since Trump have removed algorithm transparency for researchers to track disinformation, propaganda and hate speech. They have removed content and comment moderation and have done everything they can to publicly resists efforts to get them to regulate.
The casualisation of hate speech online not for just antisemitism but any grievance people have is frankly disturbing. The calls of violence and cheering on of violent ideas for anyone is sick, but this is now an acceptable thing to Meta/X/Google/Reddit
Absolutely. Time to bring in penalties for companies that fail to stop the amplification of hate speech.
If you meant to use the word "clearer" then I strongly disagree.
Israel does combine religion and politics and I hate that, but it's by no means a theocracy. The worst example of a theocracy is either Iran, or Afghanistan. Israel definitely suffers from not separating religion and politics, it's a major part of why I'm here and not there (Australia having no state religion is part of why I feel like I actually belong here), but they're not fully combined there like they are in Iran.
This is bullshit the definition of antisemitism she is proposing allows for the criticism of Israel
It does not allow many criticisms of Israel, the effects can be seen with the UK Labour Party and these specific definitions. Look up the UK Labour Party discussions on this between 2018 and 2020. These rules would mean Israel cannot ever be accused of being an “apartheid” state, even though that is the terminology used by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Israeli NGOs. Remembering the Nakba also can fall under this, so it would be illegal to remember real historical events (even when they are not accepted by Israel). Councils have already refused permission for these events in the UK, based on legal advice specifically relating to these rules. It also apply to Jewish people, so if you are a Jewish academic that supports a single democratic state, you could be arrested for antisemitism. An unedited photo of Israeli violence could be declared antisemitic, depending on the opinion of the viewer. Describing Israel as ethnonationalist (even the though the Israeli Basic Law defines Israel as “a home for the Jewish people”) is antisemitic as it questions it’s legitimacy.
Work needs to be done on eliminating hate from society, but these rules have not been created properly for that purpose. If you want to create effective laws, why not speak to experts in law, rather than just religious people and ethnic groups?
There are close to 200 states in the world and over half of them are ethno-states. The idea that Israel should be singled out for being an ethno-state is both ignorant and bigoted, that’s a great example of criticism of Israel that is 100% anti semitic
Do you think any country that is an ethnostate should be open to that criticism, or do you think that Israel should be singled out as not being allowed that criticism?
I think singling out a country for being an ethnostate when there are over a hundred of them whose legitimacy is never questioned because they are ethnostate is an obvious double standards and fits squarely within the definition of antisemitism proposed by Segal.
A state built around an ethnic identity. Most European states are this. Doesn’t mean they donmt have minorities in their state.
I would be fine with someone objecting to ethnostates in general. That is my point - criticising Israel for being that and deafening silence about dozens of other states like Croatia is telling, just a bad faith argument …What they really hate is a Jewish ethnostate not ethnostates generally …
An ethnostate is a bit more than that. It normally involves legal or constitutional preference for one ethnic group, and exclusion (partial or whole) of other ethnic groups from citizenship. Just saying “based on an ethnic identity” doesn’t involve any discrimination.
Croatia is not an ethnostate in terms of the political science or commonly used definition. Croatia is a national state of the Croatian people (non-Croatians can become Croatian through an application process). Israel is a national state of the Jewish people (non-Jews cannot become Jewish unless they change their faith).
The best examples of ethnostates are Israel, Japan, Armenia, and South Korea.
Look forward to seeing the protests that insist on the destruction of South Korea
Yes I'm sure it allows for cutting criticism like "it's hot" or "it's far away".
Jillian Segal seems to be doing a good job to increase antisemitism
Her family trust funding Advance will do that too. Apparently it's okay to go around calling non-Zionists self-hating Jews
She should've been dumped long ago.
I'm sure the government should have found a less divisive figure to appoint to that position if they looked for more than 5 minutes, but they didn't. So they've pretty much locked themselves in to backing her now.
She publicly advocated for bombing hospitals.. So how the fuck she got the job is bizarre if social cohesion involves giving a genocide cheer squad leader a position like that. She also appears to care less about Nazis than protesters calling for ceasefire (she said exactly zero about Nazis, and constantly attacking the rights and character of protesters calling for peace).
And her family trust (according to her it is just her husband's donation, although never answered if she knew of or approved the donation from their tax minimisation vehicle) is the major sponsor of a right wing racist attack group.
Same group campaigned about indigenous Australians getting special privileges. The irony now seems to be lost on them.
By the by, I've noted a lot more casual racism against indigenous Australisn in the two years since they ran their campaign of hate. No special envoy or LNP outrage about that.
She really is contemptible.
It was so insane to me when Netanyahu called out Albo for allowing antisemitism to grow.
My brother, you have killed 20,000 children in Gaza, where tf do you think the antisemitism is coming from.
Alt-headline: "Bin Laden accuses Bush of allowing Islamophobia to grow"
Even that is a lofty comparison considering what the US did in the ME during the Bush administration. Meanwhile the worst Albo has done to Israel is the fact that he’s not doing much of anything.
And of course who ever forget ‘Saddam tried to kill his dad’
https://www.smh.com.au/world/saddam-tried-to-kill-my-dad-says-bush-20020927-gdfo9p.html
Oh ya, I forgot that antisemitism was much better before 1948.
It's well documented that antisemitism started with the creation of Israel /s.
Yep, and she's determined to shut down the protest movement that confronts the Nazis.
Greens senator asked her why she said nothing about actual Nazis - pretty much hadn't occurred to her I guess, too focused on the idea that antisemitism defined as opposition to "what Israel wants":
https://youtu.be/6zom2UwJ3H8?si=7Cj7H6aQNTj6b4QZ .
Careful now, that kind of language is included in the definition of antisemitism the government will adopt following the recommendations of her report.
Similarly in the USA, the head of the Anti-Defamation League defended Elon Musk's Nazi salutes.
And was the moment normies (especially mainstream liberals, the main non-Jewish base of support for the ADL) stopped taking the ADL seriously.
The sucking up to power was unseemly- and now look where it’s got the organization? Elon is dirt and no one likes him, and you hitched your wagon to him.
If she was calling for ways to decrease racism and religious persecution across the board she might have a point. But preferincing one particular religion whilst advocating for genocide is what got us into this mess in the first place. Stoking division hasn't exactly worked wonders in the middle east. Go shit in your own backyard.
She's so problematic.
It’s presumably a KPI.
Great, so being critical of an internationally wanted war criminal is now a crime. Im sure that won't increase devisiveness in the community at all.
What a world we live in.
Edit:
There was some one, whos job it was to de-radicalise people, talking about this in another thread.
There are lots of people with questionable opinions, on almost everything, what is really the concern is when these people are converted into militants.
What turns people militant? Well not being able to voice concerns, feeling unheard, those all play into it.
So guess what some of these laws will do.
:(
100% this. banning criticism of Israel will almost certainly increase terrorism, not decrease it.
but most likely this is what they want - terrorism allows them to keep expanding, keep increasing military spending, etc.
"If you want to know who rules over you, just look for who you are not allowed to criticize."
I'm sure nothing bad could happen by leaning into the secret Jewish cabal conspiracies
Careful using that quote. It's from a neo-nazi instead of the widely believed Voltaire
Yeah, no shit. And we're setting things up to support his statement. That's not good
You can still criticise the Israeli government. The definition lists it as indications it could be anti-Semitic, not that it is by itself. The IHRA specifically states:
The definition makes it very clear that the context is required and what it references could be taken as antisemitism, but is not inherently so
I'd say a general feeling of helplessness contributes to turning people militant. That includes being able to voice concerns, but also the whole gamut of opportunities that society should provide: housing, food, job/career, social activities. Addressing the "cost of living" crisis and general enshitification of Australian sociecty is being neglected by this government (and was actively encouraged under the previous regime)
This is also the solution in the west bank.
They don't have to fully intergrate the people there, but giving them equal rights to basic things like water, equal access to justice, the ability to visit their family in the village over and the ability develop economically, would give those people a shared stake in prosperity.
If you make peoples lives better, instead of worse, if they have buy in and hope, the there is less imptus towards violence.
That would be a massive and probably multi-generational endevor, and sadly would likely never be undertaken, but its really seems Ike the best way out of the current situation to me.
To be fair it is actively encouraged under the current regime as well, not just neglected.
The definition lists it as indications it could be anti-Semitic, not that it is by itself. The IHRA specifically states:
The definition makes it very clear that the context is required and what it references could be taken as antisemitism, but is not inherently so
I think saying the definition makes this clear is a bit of a stretch. We also have seen how it has been used since its application was expanded outside of its intended research application, and it has absolutely been used to shut down pro-palestinian activism. This should also be obvious by the way its expansion is pushed by Israel and its advocates
How are they not able to voice their opinions currently? Preachers like Wasim Haddad are able to share extremist ideology at local Islamic institutions in Bankstown, Sheikh Ibrahim Dadoun was able to celebrate October 7th on the streets of Lakemba and the pro-palestinian protestors were able to pressure Australia to accept Palestine as a state despite it being currently run by Hamas which Australia lists as a terrorist group.
These militant Islamic State supporters want way more and that is not acceptable in Australia nor most of the world which is why almost everyone went to war with ISIS including Islamic states.
Palestine is not run by Hamas, thats only the Gaza Strip.
The Palestinian Authroity in the West Bank, has had Hamas sanctioned for basically its whole existence afaik. So have most countries in the middle east.
At this point, the only way to pressure Israel to finally come up with a solution to their occupation of 60+ years, is to recognise Palestine as a state.
Otherwise Israel claims they have no party to negotiate with, and will continue the Aparthed conditions in the West Bank.
We should crack down on legitimate hate speech. I have no issues with those aspects of the legislation, and belive those rules should be applied universally to all hate speech.
We also need to look at how the failure re: ASIO happened.
Are they under-resourced, or was their was a communication/ protocol issue?
These attackers visited a militant training centre overases and returned, we should ensure ASIO is setup and resourced to pick that up.
Any evidence that criticising Netanyahu is a crime now?
Here's an example:
Lets say you are critical of Netnyahu, and Israels actions in the west bank, as they effectively keeping millions of people in a state of Aparthed.
Well Aparethed is racial segregation, so you are calling out the state for effectively being racist.
Here's one of the clauses in the new rules:
Because of the above, the state of Israel already exists in an inherently racist situation.
So that definition can easily be stretched to make criticism of settlments, which Israel strongly consideres to be importaint for its continued existence, as a claim that the state is a racist endevor.
When the new rules come in, do I have to worry that this comment itself is anti-semitism?
Edit: More broadly, the new laws may crack down on protests aginst Israel, or that are considered pro-palestinian, including those at universities. With specific penalties against those who participate.
We will have to see exactly what they do with that, its still concerning though.
So yea, more prosecution for protesting.
Why’d you skip the previous paragraphs literally right before those parts. The definition lists it as indications it could be anti-Semitic, not that it is by itself. The IHRA specifically states:
The definition makes it very clear that the context is required and what it references could be taken as antisemitism, but is not inherently so
I actually don't have an issue with most of, which is why I didn't mention it.
The issue with adopting this definition of anti-semitism, is if we are going to prosecute for it, who gets to decide what overall context matters?
Perhaps this adoption will be purely performative in that sense, but apparently the envoy will be releasing clarifying information over the definitions, so it may literally be up to them and we will have to see what they propose.
This is actually a problematic part of the guidance.
Because the reality is, Israel is an ethnostate, there is a lot of political discourse inside Israel around ensuring that it remains a Jewish majority state, and laws that are aimed at facilitating that. For example welfare specifically for Orthodox Jewish families to basically pray and procreate.
Israel also represents itself as very strongly as representing Jewish people world wide.
I am not value judging that, or criticizing it, but if Israel literally emphasises itself as a Jewish collectivity, then any critisism of Israel could be framed as targeting the state of Israel in that sense, which makes that part of the definition too broad and unworkable.
That's a massive stretch to say that criticising Israel's actions in the West Bank is somehow the same as "claiming that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavour". The wording is the existence of Israel, not that the actions of the Israeli government or its political structures are racist.
Our own government consistently critcises Israel's actions in the West Bank, so will Penny Wong be locked up?
You're drawing a very long bow there.
I'll happily eat my words when someone gets charged for cricitising Netanyahu or West Bank settlements.
Sure, it will depend how courts view the definitions.
To my knowledge, Netnyahu / Israel have already claimed that criticism of settlments is a criticism of Israel's existence, and is racist / anti-semetic, so we know what their views on the definitions are.
I'll be happy if I am proven wrong, these are just my concerns.
Just because someone extremist politician in Israel has tried to push that argument, doesn't mean an Australian court is going to buy it.
Also, I've never heard Netanyahu make that argument (but happy to be corrected).
See below, Netnyahu claimed that opposition to settlements denies Jewish people their right to live in their homeland, which is pretty directly relatable to Israelis "right to exist" in the above definition.
I mean, it's obviously a ridiculous statement, but he doesn't tie settlements to Israel's right to exist or make the connection between settlements or Israel being a racist endeavour.
I'm no friend of Netanyahu but I think some of the alarmism amongst people here is not warranted.
Yea, sure, but there are dozens of statments like this I have read, some worse than others, I just dont feel like digging and finding them all again.
Look up the previous constitutions for Netnyahus Lukid party, and statments made by their members.
Its pretty clear where they stand on the topic, and they have been in power or influencial on politics for decades now.
I am hoping you are right, that I am just being alarmist, perhaps I have just been jaded by the topic, I don't know.
Antisemitism in the wider community had nothing to do with Bondi. It was terrorism that is already covered by other laws that are already in place. It was antisemitic of course. But it's the byproduct of terrorism and the perpetrators being able to access weapons legally.
Some of the report and the points that the government has said they will incorporate are more than fair, with hate speech and the like. Incorporating the IHRA definition of antisemitism though is over stepping the mark.
7 of the 11 points in it refer to Israel. Some of those points would already be covered under other hate speech proposals or laws.
Under the definition, saying that Israel practises apartheid would be antisemitic. Saying that Israel shouldn't exist due to that apartheid or the way it as a country acts would be antisemitic. Any comparison of Israeli policy to that of the Nazis in any way shape or form would be antisemitic.
The ECAJ who Segal the envoy to combat antisemitism was the past president of, has consistently conflated the Jewish people and Israel as being effectively the same. They have consistently tried to deflect genuine critcism of Israel as being antisemitic. Having that body and the person running the proposals for what is and isn't antisemitism is a conflict of interest. Because it's hard to trust a body when they have previously defended bombing hospitals and called criticism of that antisemitism.
And saying that Israel should become a state in which Jewish people have equal rights with other groups and no longer hold political supremacy is also considered saying that "Israel should not exist" in this definition.
Wait, am I reading that right? That advocating just for the middle-of-the-road 2-state solution is ruled antisemitic by this rule?
"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor" is one of the definitions. So saying how Israel exists currently is wrong would be considered antisemitic.
One of the other definitions is "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.", which is fair enough in itself, but bodies like ECAJ and Israel itself constantly conflate Jewish identity with Israel, in an attempt to make criticism of Israel the same as criticism of Jewish people in general.
It's a shit definition for the government to go by because 7 out of the 11 points in it are about Israel, not the Jewish people, and some of them double up just to include criticism of Israel explicitly, such as the point about Denying the holocaust, which is then followed up by Accusing Israel of inflating the scope of the holocaust. Which I would argue is unnecessary and already comes under the point before it.
The two-state solution might be acceptable if it retains Israel as a state where Jewish people have more political rights than others.
Big win for Zionist.
Aside from all the dead Jewish people.
Wasn't talking about the attack, but since you are, cracking down on criticism of Isreal is going to breed more anti-semetism, making attacks more likely.
Like if people can't critique Israel, they're going to shoot children in Bondi?
Sounds they are the problem?
Yes, and yes.
Doesn't make it less true.
Right. Sounds like these laws are a good starting point then and we should probably be investigating anyone who's publicly antisemitic as they will apparently try to bring their bullshit to Australia.
Crazy how everytime someone massacres some Jewish people it's Israel's fault for existing.
I'm fine with Israel existing. However, everyone current policies of apartide and colonisation, war crimes of the IDF, and public statements from the head of state trying to link all Jewish people to the actions of Israel to be significant players in the drastic rise globally in Anti-semetism.
I think Australia and the Australian Jewish community would be much better off if they could distance themselves as much as possible from Netanyahu's government and the IDF.
The murderers linked all Jewish people in Australia to Israel when they murdered innocent Jewish people. The fact that Israel is being brought up again and again in reference to these murders shows they're not alone in this country. Fucking disgusting. Leave that bullshit out of Australia where it belongs.
Exactly.
Almost every muslim who spoke publicly after Oct 7 denounced Hamas to try distance themselves from the horrible actions of Hamas.
There has been very little effort to distance Australia or Jewish Australians from the horrible actions of Netanyahu's government or IDF. If anything, things like making it illegal to protest the actions of Israel pull them closer together.
That's a major part of my point.
"Every muslim who spoke publicly after Oct 7 denounced Hamas to try distance themselves from the horrible actions of Hamas."
Well that's a lie. We'll stop here.
That's never been a huge concern for Zionists.
In what way?
Zionism is about statehood and state power, not Jewish ideals. The actions of Zionists, such as the legally declared war crimes in Israel, make the world more dangerous for Jews.
IMHO war crimes are a bad idea for both sides. That's why they're war crimes.
Please refute this as you see fit.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Israel having the right to exists does not make it okay to bring that bullshit over to Australia leading to the massacre of innocent Jewish people. Stop excusing that behaviour.
You're just not keeping up with the conversation. Aka. I like turtles.
It is not about Israel having a right to exist. It can exist. But what is Israel and how it behaves matters. Currently it is legally committing war crimes.
If a person committed war crimes and people criticised them for it would your response be "that person had a right to exist"? Guys guys..... "they have a right to exist"..... Guys.
Absolutely nothing of value was contributed.
Grand. And that has nothing to do with the Jewish people living in Bondi who were massacred by the same disgusting mindset that Israel = Jewish. Keep that shit out of our country and stop excusing, ironically, attempted genocide.
Oops. Looks like my anti-zionism (I'm anti-ethnostate) and legitimate criticism of Israel's actions is about to mean I'm legally an anti-semite. At least I'll share that official label with millions of Jews.
And my vote for Labor just disappeared forever because I'm not voting to be labelled an anti-semite when I'm supportive of Jews and Judaism.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrghhhhh
Sorry, I know that’s not constructive, but this is all very infuriating and exhausting
Nah its true. You forgot oh so predictable though
Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism. Ridiculous if they go that far down the path.
Genuine question, did the Apartheid South African government ever form a special envoy to combat racism and accuse anyone criticising Apartheid of racism? Because you just know Australia would be all over that. We have been consistently pro-apartheid since the first outback mission was built, and this is no exception.
End the daily murdering in Gaza is step one
I’d implore everyone to read Segal’s recommendations and then read the government response to the recommendations. They aren’t big documents and shouldn’t take too long
I’ve seen so much manner of nonsense in the past week about what is in/what is not in these recommendations that it’s genuinely infuriating
This isn’t a comment on OP or the article by the way, I too have a concern regarding the recommendation on security measures being too vague in scope and that calls for university reform are barking up the wrong tree, just a general comment on some of the nonsense floating around from bad actors
Yes, people should read both.
In addition to what you have mentioned, my main concern is that the new definition of anti-semitism includes blanket clauses that prevents criticism of Israel.
For example, in the West Bank, Palestinians and Jews have very different rights, the system is pretty much aparthed, but mentioning this under these new laws would be anti-semitism.
Claiming that a Jewish Citizen of Israel may have divided loyalties, is also anti-semitism.
Now that has some validity, because it has been a historical dog whistle.
But now imagine that we gave the same protections to Russian or Chinese citizens, and could never suggest they may be taking unterward action.
Israels intelligence agency has forged Australian passports before, to use to assasinate targets.
So there are valid security concerns here, as well as enshrining different rights for people of different religions into law.
Was this the proposal for the universities and ABC to lose funding if the Envoy for Anti-Semitism (Segal) decided they weren't being anti-anti-semitic enough?
Yeah, nah.
Yes it was the same recommendation/proposal
Includes defining antisemitism as being against the existence of the state of Israel, so NO.
The definition lists it as indications it could be anti-Semitic, not that it is by itself. The IHRA specifically states:
The definition makes it very clear that the context is required and what it references could be taken as antisemitism, but is not inherently so
Their worked examples directly contradict that statement though. Other countries have spies. Even our geopolitical allies have spies here no doubt. Yet to accuse a Jewish person of divided loyalties between Israel and Australia would be antisemitism under these recommendations. Despite Israel having a documented history of espionage and recruitment to the IDF within Australia. This is a massive double standard.
It also states that comparisons between Israel's policies and those of the Nazis is antisemitism. So pointing out the fact that Israel is conducting a genocide of Palestinians would be antisemitism. Making all the recent protests to free Palestine around the country illegal.
Notice how is says
That clears that up.
Weasel words. If they cared about context, they would've included it in the worked examples. The worked examples make it clear what they mean.
The IHRA suffers from outside bodies cherry picking what they want to hear
Here is a good article from a few years ago, it’s not so much what they wrote, but the vagueness has invited the usual individual suspects to attack any and all opponents
https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-weekend-essay/in-the-shadow-of-the-holocaust
... can you not see how this is going exacerbate the problem?
Islamophobia and antisemitism feed off each other. if we actually truly want civil society, they must be addressed simultaneously
I found this under recommendation 7 of the govt response:
Has anyone come across this Community Broadcasting Foundation and Program before? Is it radio, podcasts or Tiktok ‘influencers’ or what? And that’s a fair chunk of cash divided 450 ways…
Traditional media from what I’m aware. $85 million for them probably is standard fare as well, even if it seems like a fair amount
Oh crap. Thanks for this.
No idea how a woman who donated as much she did to advance Australia ended up in that position.
At least Albo isn’t walking back on recognising the state of Palestine.
Not yet anyway
Disappointed in Albo on this one. He's gone to water under media pressure. He's agreeing with this, agreeing with that, apologizing left right and centre. This event was unstoppable. It was two brainwashed antiZionists using an insane(given the volatility context of global Jewry) public party to justify their inadequacies. If he is going to do anything to mitigate the effects of inevitable future attacks he should be educating the public on the difference between antiZionism and antisemitism. You can ban all the guns you like but you won't stop illegal access of guns, bombs and vehicles used as terrorist weapons. The Holocaust had zero to do with last Sunday's atrocity. Educate the public on the impacts of colonialism, in this case, Zionist colonialism. Address the root causes of terrorism. Show the public that this is a TURF WAR and that it has zero to do with religion. Jewish peak bodies playing the religion card is only used to mask the effects of their historic and ongoing land grabs.
100%. Genuinely pathetic and weak leadership, caving to media and lobby group pressure (the wider Australian public is not calling for this) in the wake a tragedy that deserves careful analysis and consideration. Kneejerk reactions are such a hallmark of successive Australian governments.
Evidence of what the wider Australian public thinks? Zero of course.
Nah this "peak" body is usually alright. The JCA don't play the religion card often, and when they do it's mostly appropriate. Not like the other "peak" body, the AJA who can't speak without playing the religion card.
Will this also apply to islamophobia? Will the IDF be designated as a terrorist organisation? We should not be giving exemptions to any rules put forward and should apply equally.
"first step", have they not been paying attention to the half a dozen other things they have already done to combat it? sounds pretty ungrateful.
[removed]
[removed]
I'm just curious: what actually is antisemitism in a practical sense? Other than the single extreme Bondi event, how is this ordinarily expressed or felt by the accusers? Is it like, name calling/insults or say discrimination in the work or market places, lack of opportunities. mistreatment of indigenous people is pretty obvious. is it something like that? apparently it's happening on all our streets. what am i missing?
I got down voted back in 2023 for predicting check points along bondi rd but we are on target
It's so pathetic that our supposed leader kowtows to these lobbyists like this.
I don’t think he will please everyone, no matter what he does. In moments like this, emotions are understandably high, but history shows that when tensions escalate, entire communities are too easily scapegoated.
What is particularly disturbing is how some politicians use tragedies to advance their own agendas, fuelling division instead of encouraging calm, responsibility, and accountability. Today it is one community under scrutiny — the question is, who will it be next?
Going forward, authorities should be notified in advance of large public events. If such events are approved to proceed, appropriate security should be in place, with costs borne by event organisers rather than taxpayers.
I just enjoy the comment section on these articles tying itself in knots to try to desperately implicate Israel as at fault for an attack by an Australian affiliate of The Islamic State (IS/ISIS) terrorist group in Australia.
You haven't got a Zionism problem in Australia, you go an Islamism problem. The sooner that's correctly diagnosed and treatment begins the sooner Australian society will start to restore a sense of wholeness, calm and the national healing the Prime Minister spoke about.
I think a lot of us just wish tragedies weren't exploited politically in order to crack down on our personal rights and liberties is all mate...
Because of Zionism, we can't call a genocide a genocide without fear of genuine repercussions. Our politicians cannot state it. You can day whatever you want about Islam, Arabs, Palestinians etc.
Why do you think this is? This also mirrors apartheid in South Africa. You, and probably everyone else will look back on this accurately in the future. But you can't do so yet.
Also, under these new recommendations. Virtually every comment in this thread would be at risk of breaching the new rules.
It’s possible to have two problems at once
So you want to stop hate by promoting more hate?
Thats crazy.
Why do you think muslim extremist hate us? Maybe it has something to do with us being a part of the American empire which has killed millions in the Middle East and contributed to Israel’s genocide, maybe we need to ask questions on how we can also stop our support of destruction. Maybe we need to not only resolve the evil of extremist terrorists but also stop our terrorism in the world.
How dare you, the world is black and white and we are the good guys. Nuance doesn't exist and a genocide of Palestinians is something we really need to think about deeply and consider how it affects us before taking any action or stance.
So over people whose world view is supposed by 'Brown peoples lives don't have value'. It's so disgusting, they genuinely have no shame. No one deserves violence, or to be killed. Is it so complex?
Peak Jewish body ? Are we talking male or female ?