The late Lionel Murphy must have understood how fleeting the opportunity of public office is. Perhaps that’s a big reason why, controversially, Gough Whitlam appointed his radical attorney-general to a conservative High Court in 1975.

In 1977, towards the end of a judgment about contracts, Murphy – in words that were unnecessary to decide the case and therefore not legally binding – declared, “elections of federal Parliament provided for in the Constitution require freedom of speech and other communication”.

In 1992, Justice Murphy’s nascent ‘implied freedom of political communication’ was adopted by a majority of the High Court and was recently used to strike down the NSW Public Assembly Restriction Declaration (PARD) law.

The PARD law was aimed at stopping protests in the wake of the Bondi massacre and was intended to prevent any sizeable assembly, as the state Police Minister Yasmin Catley said in her speech on the bill, “picnics and groups of friends as well as quiet and ordered vigils that do not breach the LEPRA threshold will still be able to be held“.

PARD’s stated rationale was that ‘social cohesion’ would be harmed by protests post Bondi.

The court rejected this, because the “conception of civic life and social cohesion is at odds with the system of representative and responsible government for which the Constitution provides“.

When I contributed to the parliamentary debate around PARD, I predicted that violence might ensue and sought to prospectively apportion responsibility for this away from our police, who are obliged to enforce politician-made-law.

“It is us, not the police, who will decide by passing this bill to up the ante; to remove the pressure valve of protest; to create a pressure cooker; and to tell the community that summer should be a time for barbecues, a time with family, and not a time of protest and politics – a dystopian vision, if ever I heard one. But our hardworking police will have to enforce it, and I wish them all the best of luck. This could go so wrong.“

And so wrong it did go.

It is beyond debatable that the PARD law caused the violence at Sydney Town Hall on February 9.

The protest organisers had signalled their intention to march to State Parliament after the planned protest and had lodged a ‘Form 1’, that by law starts the process of police or court approval.

The PARD law however required police to reject the application and prevented the usual process that can end, if necessary, in a binding court decision.

I attended the protest and remained inside a speaker’s area. I had the opportunity to observe what was happening and the information flowing between protestors and key participants and speakers.

I recall feeling a distinct sense of unreality as I watched a tram glide down George Street, just separated from a packed crowd of thousands by a thin line of police determined not to close the street or allow a protest march away from Town Hall.

Toward the end of the protest some people indicated they would defy police and insist on marching to parliament.

One could be critical of this decision; though as it happens it was an authorised public procession, as police, relying on the invalid PARD, had not obtained a contrary court order.

Some MPs attempted to negotiate with police and Greens MLC Sue Higginson called Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon from the protest to warn violence was imminent and asking that he facilitate a peaceful march to Parliament.

Mal Lanyon has said he told Ms. Higginson that he was intent on enforcing both the PARD and the Major Event Declaration.

The Commissioner has spoken publicly on what happened next, “what we saw was a large number of people coming out to George Street at the end of the protest and march on police”.

This would not have occurred if the PARD law had not wrongly told police the procession was unlawful and if the usual orderly legal process had not been prevented from occurring.

Of course, once a trigger is pulled during a mass protest, human responses are engaged and a permissive environment can be created for wanton violence, including from police.

Indeed, this is why I and others have warned repeatedly in recent years of the dangers of restricting mass protests, the obligation on the state to peacefully facilitate them and the risk of a repeat of the disastrous 1978 Mardi Gras police riot.

The four Labor MPs who attended the protest, including Cameron Murphy, son of Lionel, were quickly labelled ‘rebel Labor MPs’ by the mainstream media, presumably because the premier disapproved of our attendance.

Subscribe now

Political leaders of course come and go, as do political parties.

The most enduring political party in Australia however is the Labor Party, both the party of reform and itself in a constant state of flux and change.

The court’s dismissal of the PARD law should be a moment of pause and reflection for the Labor Party.

In the wake of Town Hall I was inundated, as were my colleagues, with supportive messages from Labor’s rank and file, across factions, branches and trade unions.

The common theme was respect and appreciation and a shared belief in enduring core Labor values; collective struggle and a commitment to human rights and dignity.

Their messages reminded me of the importance of these enduring Labor values, and why they are crucial in this moment.

The PARD law debacle highlights two versions of Labor: the Labor of Gough Whitlam and Lionel Murphy – the two men most responsible for the creation of the implied freedom of political communication – and a Labor that capitulates to raw rightwing power. It is an imperfect dichotomy of course, but those versions of Labor do compete, have always competed and the outcome profoundly matters in Australia.

The lesson from what we are seeing unfold in the United Kingdom, with Labour nosediving in the polls, must be learned. An abject abandonment of principle, particularly in these times, might doom our party.

Got a tip? Send an email to tips@deepcutnews.com or send an anonymous Signal to @deepcut.25.

Deepcut’s journalism is free to read because our readers choose to fund our work. If you want to support fearless Australian reporting, consider becoming a paid subscriber or making a donation today.

Last month, the Global Sumud Flotilla set sail from ports across the western Mediterranean. A convoy of more than 100 ships, the flotilla carried food, medical supplies, construction equipment and aid for civilians enduring Israel’s ongoing blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Australian environmental activist Zack Schofield was one of those on board, having sailed from Sicily last week. Shortly after leaving, Schofield agreed to file a piece for Deepcut reporting on the flotilla’s progress.

In a brief voicemail sent on Thursday morning, however, Schofield apologised for being unable to file his draft, as the fleet was being boarded by the Israeli navy.

Family members demand government speak out

Israeli rigid inflatable boats and motor vessels began circling the flotilla off the western coast of Crete — more than 600 nautical miles from Gaza. The European parliament only recognises the ‘Maritime Activity Zones’ Israel has imposed off the coast of Gaza to a length of 20 nautical miles from the coast of the strip itself. Unlike most countries that border the Mediterranean, however, Israel has never recognised the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – the 1994 treaty establishing a common legal framework for maritime borders.

Schofield was among six Australians — Bianca Webb-Pullman, Ethan Floyd, Neve O’Connor, Surya McEwen, and Cameron Tribe — who were confirmed to be abducted by Israel after the flotilla was boarded. Footage published to the flotilla’s social media accounts appears to show Schofield and several other activists being held at gunpoint.

Anny Mokotow, a Melbourne-based activist with the Loud Jew Collective, was aboard the Furleto when the Israeli navy began boarding the fleet.

“Our boat had to do search and rescue to find stranded boats and passengers. Many boats were broken, [their] engines destroyed and rigging cut,” she said.

In a video published from Sitia General Hospital in Crete, Schofield and fellow Australian flotilla participants Ethan Floyd and Neve O’Connor said they were held for two days aboard an “Israeli prison ship,” where they were “beaten and tortured” before being released.

Schofield’s mother, Joanne Jarowski, said on Sunday that she only received word that her son was safe two days after losing contact.

“Zack was on a borrowed phone, and only had a few seconds to tell us he was in hospital for medical review and that he loves us,” Jarowski said. “We want to know his complete medical assessment, and we really bloody want to know why our government hasn’t publicly condemned the kidnapping of our son and detaining him illegally on international waters.”

Human rights lawyer Bernadette Zaydan said the flotilla’s legal team was compiling evidence of Israel’s “grave violations” of international law, including the use of drones to “threaten, intimidate, and surveil civilian vessels” and electronically blocking the fleet’s radio signals.

“By deliberately jamming the vessels’ radio communication systems, Israel prevented crews from exercising their right to make distress calls, recklessly endangering civilian lives and blocking coastal authorities from fulfilling their legal duty to respond to maritime emergencies,” Zaydan said.

Support Deepcut

Activist ‘witnessed people being shot with pellets’

While most of the 175 flotilla participants abducted by Israel were released in Crete, two flotilla leaders — Thiago Ávila and Saif Abu Keshek — were forcibly taken to Ishka Prison in Ashkelon.

The governments of Brazil and Spain issued a joint statement on Friday condemning “in the strongest terms the kidnapping of two of their citizens in international waters by the Government of Israel”, demanding their immediate release. Israeli human rights body Adalah said the pair were “subjected to extreme brutality by the Israeli military during the seizure of the vessels,” with Ávila being “dragged face-down across the floor and beaten so severely that he passed out twice”.

The Albanese government’s response to the abduction of several Australian citizens has been relatively muted. In a pre-recorded message played to callers of DFAT’s emergency consular assistance hotline, the department “strongly advised” Australians “not to try to break the naval blockade [of Gaza]”, as “previous attempts to break the blockade have resulted in death, injury, arrest or deportation of foreigners”.

Floyd, a Wiradjuri, Ngiyampaa and Wailwan man, touched down in Sydney yesterday afternoon. In a press conference at Sydney airport, Floyd described how Israeli soldiers “brutally and illegally attacked unarmed humanitarians” aboard the flotilla.

“I witnessed people being shot with pellets,” Floyd said. “I witnessed people being thrown to the ground, dragged along the ground by their limbs, people being forced to listen to the shouts and screams of people who were being beaten.”

Floyd reiterated the flotilla’s calls urging the Australian government to publicly condemn Israel for “illegally kidnapping and torturing Australian citizens”, expert diplomatic pressure to secure the release of Ávila and Keshek, and end “Australia’s complicity in the genocide in Palestine”.

Despite a ceasefire declared last October, Israel continues to occupy 59% of the Gaza Strip and has killed at least 828 Palestinians. Israel has also blocked aid trucks from entering Gaza, in violation of ceasefire terms.

Check out the latest Deepthink episode with Lebanese-American journalist Rania Khalek, where we go deep on the war in Lebanon. Watch or listen on YouTube, Spotify, Apple or your preferred podcast platform with this RSS feed.

Dr Wesam Charkawi is an Australian-born Sydney researcher, Imam and community organiser. He completed a PhD at Western Sydney University in the field of countering violent extremism. His work sits at the intersection of faith, youth work, research, and public advocacy, with a strong emphasis on justice, community empowerment, and principled civic participation. Opinions expressed are those of the author alone.

The need for an academic voice becomes most important when public events are being explained before they are properly understood. In these moments, the first account is often not the most accurate one. Fear, political pressure and media framing can quickly shape how violence is understood before the evidence has been carefully examined.

The role of analysis is therefore not to distance the discussion from its human consequences. It is to ensure that the explanation does not outpace the evidence. This matters because once a narrative settles, it shapes policing, law, media coverage and public suspicion long after the event itself.

In the wake of recent reporting by ABC Background Briefing on the Bondi attackers, including clinical observations from a forensic psychiatrist, accounts from family members, and testimony from those who encountered them in ordinary settings, a clearer picture has begun to emerge — not an ideological pathway but a pattern of isolation, control, secrecy, and deterioration over time.

These are not new findings. They are entirely consistent with decades of research, yet they continue to be ignored in how terrorism is explained.

The Bondi shootings should have prompted a serious reassessment of how terrorism is explained. Instead, the response quickly returned to a familiar pattern: searching for ideology, religion, or belief as the primary explanation for violence. Yet the available evidence suggests a more complex pathway, shaped by social, familial, psychological, and contextual dynamics that cannot be reduced to ideology or faith.

Help us publish perspectives the mainstream media won’t. Buy a paid subscription to support Deepcut today.

Buy a paid subscription

Isolation and family breakdown

The reporting on Sajid and Naveed Akram reveals a trajectory that does not begin with ideology. It begins with secrecy, isolation, control, family breakdowns, and gradual behavioural shifts. It includes deception, fractured relationships, psychological instability, personal breakdown, and long-term exposure to weapons.

As forensic psychiatrist Dr Andrew Aboud observed, Sajid appeared to be “an isolated man prone to secrecy” who became “increasingly vulnerable” before locking onto a cause. Even when intelligence agencies examined the individuals, they found no evidence of imminent violence. The system did not fail because it missed ideology. It did not fail because it misread religion. It failed because violence does not emerge from neat ideological pathways.

For more than two decades, counter-terrorism policy has been built on a simple assumption: that identifying ideology, particularly religious ideology, allows the state to predict and prevent violence. That assumption is not supported by evidence; it is contradicted by it.

The Bondi tragedy is a clear example of this contradiction. Sajid did not arrive in Australia as a religious extremist. He married across faith lines to a woman from a devout Christian family, lived in a mixed community and displayed no clear theological rigidity. What followed was not a linear ideological journey but a slow accumulation of instability: social isolation, control within the family, resentment, and breakdown. Even the introduction to extremist networks did not produce immediate violence. Authorities investigated and found no actionable threat.

This aligns directly with decades of research rejecting linear models of radicalisation and distinguishing cognitive radicalisation from violent mobilisation. Sageman demonstrates that most individuals exposed to extremist ideas never engage in violence. Horgan has repeatedly shown that cognitive radicalisation is not the same as behavioural mobilisation. McCauley and Moskalenko distinguish clearly between holding extreme beliefs and acting on them.

Schuurman goes further, showing that non-involvement is the norm, not the exception. Holbrook’s findings in 2025 reinforce this pattern: ideology often functions as a justification, not a cause. This also accords with Australian research showing that religiosity is not a predictor of support for violent extremism, while alienation, perceived injustice, and social identity dynamics carry greater explanatory weight.

Support Deepcut

The political lens of ideology

The Bondi shootings closely reflect this literature. Religious language appears late, not early. It is used to frame and explain violence that has already taken shape through other dynamics. The video cited by police, invoking a flag and political grievance, is not evidence of causation; it is evidence of narrative. It is the story attached to the act, not the origin of it.

Yet the policy response continues to prioritise ideology. Terrorism law still embeds political, ideological, and religious cause as a defining element, with consequences that extend beyond legal classification into policing practice, media interpretation, and community trust. It directs attention toward belief systems, encourages law enforcement to interpret behaviour through the lens of ideology, and, in cases involving Muslim actors, turns religious identity into an evidentiary shortcut for motive.

The consequences are measurable and damaging, especially for communities that have long been treated as suspect under counter-terrorism frameworks. Programs have targeted Muslims for decades rather than environments of risk. Families seeking help have found themselves drawn into security processes rather than support structures.

This risk is not confined to Bondi. In a separate Australian case, the family of a vulnerable autistic child reportedly sought help from authorities, only for the matter to evolve into a counter-terrorism prosecution pathway rather than a protective intervention. That case illustrates the danger of a security-first response when vulnerability, family concern, and early intervention should be treated primarily through safeguarding rather than prosecution.

Further, the Bondi reporting reinforces a broader point: intelligence and policing frameworks may be able to investigate ideology, but they are far less equipped to detect the slow accumulation of secrecy, family influence, social isolation, psychological deterioration, and access to weapons that often precede violence.

The framework must change

In this regard, the Royal Commission’s interim findings acknowledged that there was no clear operational gap that authorities could have filled to prevent the attack. That point is critical because it exposes the limits of a system built around identifying ideology. If the model were correct — if belief reliably predicted violence — then earlier intervention should have been possible, but it was not. This is not a failure of intelligence collection; it is a failure of assumption.

The assumption is that ideology produces violence. The evidence shows that violence emerges from a convergence of factors: grievance, isolation, humiliation, identity conflict, personal instability, and opportunity. Ideology may later give the act meaning, coherence, or justification, but it does not generate it.

Continuing to build terrorism law around ideological cause is therefore both empirically unsound and operationally counterproductive. It widens the net in the wrong direction, and it shifts attention toward belief rather than behaviour. It does not strengthen prevention; it deepens suspicion, erodes trust, and leaves the real pathways to violence poorly understood.

The Bondi case should be understood for what it is: a direct challenge to the dominant model of radicalisation. It shows that violence does not follow a predictable ideological pathway. It shows that exposure to extremist ideas does not equate to an imminent threat. It shows that systems built to detect ideology cannot reliably detect violence.

If the goal is prevention, then the framework must change. The focus must move away from categorising belief and toward identifying behavioural escalation, social isolation, and environments of risk. Terrorism law must be grounded in serious harm and coercive intent, not in attempts to define ideology.

The alternative is to continue misdiagnosing the problem, widening surveillance, and eroding trust, while failing to prevent the very acts the system is designed to stop. The Bondi attack did not confirm the existing model; it exposed its limits.

Check out the latest Deepthink episode with Lebanese-American journalist Rania Khalek, where we go deep on the war in Lebanon. Watch or listen on YouTube, Spotify, Apple or your preferred podcast platform with this RSS feed.

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) will deliver a session titled ‘Understanding Judaism: cultural and religious awareness training for staff’ to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) on Friday, May 1.

An internal email obtained by Deepcut encourages staff to attend and outlines the training session. The program specifically covers a history of antisemitism, Zionism and “the difference between being anti-Israel and antisemitic”.

Deepcut understands, according to a source who wished to remain anonymous, that a number of CDPP staff members were “shocked, frustrated and disappointed that a lobbyist has been invited to speak”.

What’s the big deal?

ECAJ is considered one of the peak pro-Israel organisations in Australia. Although it is not technically registered as a lobby group, it is among an ecosystem of groups that advocate a pro-Israel position.

According to Bart Shteinman of the Jewish Council of Australia, “You can define the Israel lobby by looking at organisations who see it as part of their role to publicly advocate for the state of Israel and political Zionism”.

As revealed in a recent Deepcut analysis, ECAJ has over the past two decades consistently pushed for an expansion of hate speech laws that encroach on political expression.

The CDPP is also the office prosecuting Akram for the Bondi shooting that killed 15 people last December.

Akram has been hit with numerous charges and faces a life sentence.

What’s the wider context?

ECAJ has been a longtime supporter of the controversial IHRA definition of antisemitism, which critics say conflates criticism of Israel and Zionism – an ethnonationalist, supremacist political ideology – with antisemitism.

Its former president and current antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, last July called on the Australian government to adopt “the IHRA definition across all levels of government, public institutions and regulatory bodies” in a widely-criticised plan to combat antisemitism.

Subscribe now

The Albanese government initially balked at Segal’s proposals amid concerns of draconian overreach, but adopted the plan immediately after the Bondi shooting.

CDPP’s cultural and religious awareness training, steered by a pro-Israel group that endorses the IHRA definition, fits within the context of the Labor government implementing Segal’s plan.

Critics such as the Jewish Council, however, say that the IHRA definition is an effort to “explicitly target critics of Israel” and wrongly conflates “Jewish identity with support for Israel”.

Comment has been sought from CDPP and ECAJ.

Got a tip? Send an email to tips@deepcutnews.com or send an anonymous Signal to @deepcut.25.

The Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department partnering with a pro-Zionist legal body to solicit public submissions to the Royal Commission into antisemitism risks jeopardising the inquiry’s independence, critics have warned.

In March, National Legal Aid – a confederation of the eight state and territory-based legal aid bodies – announced the formation of the National Legal Advice Service (NALS), a legal information and support body providing “independent, trauma-informed and culturally safe legal advice to members of the public” considering making a submission to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. On April 21, the Commission advised subscribers to its email list that “National Legal Aid and the Jewish Centre for Law and Justice are now both operating the National Legal Advice Service”.

However, the JCLJ’s history of Zionist legal and political activity, the vocally pro-Israel stance of many of its leadership, its small size and low public profile have raised red flags with advocacy groups.

It is not the first time that questions have been raised about the Attorney-General’s Department providing pro-Israel legal bodies with access to the inner workings of the Commission. Last week Michael West Media revealed that the Department had appointed law firm Gilbert + Tobin, a major sponsor of the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce, as lawyers assisting the Commission without an open tender process.

We can’t publish investigations like this without the support of our readers. Buy a paid subscription to support Deepcut today.

Buy a paid subscription

Who is the JCLJ?

For an organisation chosen to co-run the submissions process for a high-profile royal commission, the JCLJ has a remarkably low profile. While some information can be found on its public ACNC listing, the JCLJ’s website contains no information about its board, executive leadership or employees, its sources of funding or other support, a physical or mailing address, or contact information for general enquiries. The JCLJ also appears to have no social media presence.

What information exists appears to indicate a very small and largely volunteer-run group. The JCLJ’s most recent Annual Information Statement listed a $470,320 donation as its sole source of income. It also listed just $34,919 in employee expenses, including salaries, for the 2024-25 financial year. In a March interview on Melbourne community radio station 3ZZZ, JCLJ director Marc Felman KC said the JCLJ had four lawyers on staff, as well as an informal network of pro bono lawyers and volunteers.

In response to questions, an Attorney General’s Department spokesperson said the department “considered JCLJ’s capacity, capability, and governance mechanisms against selection criteria’, and that it “is satisfied that the core probity and transparency principles have been adhered to”.

Support Deepcut

Pro-Zionist legal campaigning

The JCLJ’s public ACNC listing names five directors, one board member, one public officer and one ‘responsible person’ in an undefined role (likely a treasurer). They include figures such as:

• Peter Hersh OAM, a chartered accountant who has sat on the board of governors of Technion – Israel Institute of Technology since 2012;

• Director Keren Miller, a senior legal counsel at Australia Post and principal solicitor at Prosperity Law who has claimed on her LinkedIn page that Palestinian-Australian author Randa Abdel-Fattah “called for ‘an end to Israel’ aka the wiping out of 8 million Jews”; and

• Director Anthony Small, the custodian of the Millie Phillips Jewish Education Fund, which has funded “countless trips to Israel and enabling children to go to Zionist youth camps”.

The JCLJ’s Zionist and pro-Israel leanings go beyond the personal political opinions of its directors and board members. In the March radio interview, Felman revealed the JCLJ provided legal assistance to Menachem Vorchheimer’s successful lawsuit asserting that the phrase “all Zionists are terrorists” breaches hate speech laws.

Felman also admitted that the JCLJ “coordinated, funded and supported” a joint effort by the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry to assist NSW Police’s successful October 2025 appeal for a prohibition order banning a planned pro-Palestinian march to the Sydney Opera House.

In January, the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) listed the JCLJ alongside the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, the Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council, the Dor Foundation and the ZFA itself as organisations working “to ensure a unified and strategic approach” toward the Commission.

Dr Wesam Charkawi, a spokesperson for Muslim Australian advocacy organisation The Muslim Vote, said the Commission’s partnership with the JCLJ “raises serious questions for the Attorney General’s Department and the Royal Commission”.

“An organisation whose directors and affiliates have taken strong public positions on Zionism, Palestine, protest activity and issues likely to arise before the Commission should not be placed in a role connected to public participation without clear safeguards. This is a matter that goes directly to public confidence in the process,” Charkawi said.

“If the Commission, or departments connected to it, are directing members of the public toward a legal support service partly run by an advocacy body that has already been active in litigation, public commentary and coordinated efforts around antisemitism, Zionism and Palestine, the public is entitled to ask how independence is being protected, and how any actual or perceived conflicts are being managed.”

The Department did not directly answer questions as to how the JCLJ or NALS will respond to potential submissions that conflate antisemitism with criticism of the state of Israel or the genocide in Gaza.

“While both NLA and JCLJ are available to provide free legal information, help and advice, they are independent of one another and individuals can choose to engage with each service accordingly,” the Department spokesperson said.

“Members of the public can also engage with the Royal Commission directly, with information and evidence being collected through public and private hearings, interviews, and submissions.”

The JCLJ did not respond to questions.

Check out the latest Deepthink episode with Lebanese-American journalist Rania Khalek, where we go deep on the war in Lebanon. Watch or listen on YouTube, Spotify, Apple or your preferred podcast platform with this RSS feed.

In this third part of our series, the making of Australia’s police state, we explore the role pro-Israel lobby groups have played in pushing for laws at federal and state levels that undermine free speech and basic democratic rights.

Analysis of parliamentary submissions across numerous pieces of legislation show that pro-Israel lobby groups have consistently sought to expand the scope of counter-terror, hate speech and anti-protest laws. Their efforts have helped to push laws to the point where legitimate political expression becomes caught up in criminal legislation.

Lobbying efforts are often done through public submissions to draft legislation and parliamentary inquiries, as well as direct consultation with powerbrokers within both Labor and the Coalition.

Not every wish expressed by pro-Israel lobby groups becomes law, but their consistent efforts in pushing for tougher laws have nevertheless yielded results, to the detriment of democratic rights in Australia.

Below is a sample list of submissions by pro-Israel lobby groups to key anti-democratic reforms that have shaped legislation.

If you missed the first two parts of this series, you can catch up on part one here and part two here. You can also read up on our explainer on Australia’s pro-Israel lobby groups here.

ECAJ lobbying at the Commonwealth level

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) is the peak elected body of the Australian Jewish community, although it is important to stress they are not representative of the entire Jewish community. Indeed, the Jewish Council of Australia has labelled ECAJ a right-wing Zionist group, with the organisation consistently pushing a pro-Israel position in public discourse and in its engagements with the political establishment.

Our analysis of parliamentary submissions has found that ECAJ and its constituent state-level organisations consistently push for the expansion of hate speech laws that encroach on political expression.

The following is a timeline of such efforts.

2006:

A report by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) into the effectiveness of a federal anti-terror law noted that out of all the submissions received by the Commission, ECAJ’s was the only one in favour of making “glorification or encouragement of terrorism” an offence.

• What does this mean? The definition of “glorification or encouragement” would have been so broad and vague that the ALRC warned it represented “an unwarranted incursion into freedom of expression and… freedom of political discourse”.

• Was it adopted? No.

2010:

ECAJ pushed for the ‘intent’ condition to be removed in the offence of urging violence against protected groups under a Commonwealth hate crimes law.

• What does this mean? Normally, the law says it’s not enough for someone to say something that sounds supportive of violence – there needs to be proof that the person intended for violence to occur. For example, expressing support for resistance against violence oppression versus directly calling on people to carry out attacks. This distinction exists to protect legitimate political expression, i.e. the former. Under ECAJ’s recommendation, however, a person could be held criminally responsible for a wide range of statements, regardless if that person intended to deliberately inspire violence.

• Was it adopted? No. This demand would be met, however, 14 years later with the passage of the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024, detailed below.

2024:

ECAJ described the draft of the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024, one of the initial federal hate crime bills made in response to the October 7 attacks, as being a “modest step in the right direction” that “does not go far enough”.

Their main demand was to criminalise hate speech to the extent of “promoting, advocating or glorifying, rather than inciting” violence against a group. In other words, to broaden the crime to include mere rhetoric, even if no violent act occurs.

They also recommended that prosecutors should not need to establish what a person intended or hoped would happen as a result of their speech, instead that the speech alone would suffice as an offence.

• What does this mean? As with past attempts, ECAJ sought to lower the threshold of what counts as hate speech in order to cast a wider net, ensnaring activities that could be considered legitimate political expression. Additionally, ECAJ pushed to have the ‘good faith’ defence removed. This defence would protect people from being charged for hate speech if they were making statements in ‘good faith’, such as for legitimate artistic or academic purposes.

• Was it adopted? Despite some of their recommendations not being adopted into the final text of the Bill, ECAJ celebrated its passage. It represented a victory for ECAJ because lawmakers adopted their main inclusion of “promoting, advocating or glorifying, rather than inciting” violence.

  
  One of their main recommendations, the creation of a ‘serious vilification’ offence (meaning to incite or promote general hatred rather than violence), was not adopted in this Bill. This offence would be introduced in legislation a little over a year later, with the support of ECAJ, as part of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026. However, the serious vilification offence component of that bill did not get passed.

2025:

Following the Bondi attacks last December, the federal government rushed through the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Act 2026, drawing condemnation from rights groups and experts for being overly broad and draconian.

The new laws gave the federal government extraordinary authoritarian-like powers to proscribe organisations as hate groups as it sees fit, and fulfilled a longstanding ECAJ demand to lower the hate speech threshold.

Nevertheless, ECAJ and the Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) pushed for even stricter enforcement and penalty regimes. ECAJ’s submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security regarding the Bill was made jointly with the government-appointed Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism (ASECA) Jillian Segal – herself a former ECAJ president. Like AIJAC’s submission, it pushed for a broader and more inclusive definition of hate crimes and hate speech than what was passed in the final Bill.

• What does this mean? These recommendations included expanding the definition of ‘hate groups’ from formal organisations to something as loose as a WhatsApp group chat, and for formally listing groups that ‘promote violence’ outside of Australia as hate groups. ECAJ additionally attempted to loosen the definition of who counts as a member of these groups to include just association with a group.
  
  The Bill also introduced new aggravated offences for religious leaders who urged violence, and ECAJ recommended reducing the threshold for these offences to the point of ‘reckless’, or implied, advocacy for violence. They also attempted to broaden the scope for who counted as a religious leader under the offence, as well as to impose mandatory minimum sentences across all offences.

• Was it adopted? The hate group recommendations were adopted in full. The threshold for a person counting as a member of a group was finally broadened to include informal membership, covering things like WhatsApp or Signal groups, but not supporters or participants in group activities.
  
  While ECAJ was partially successful in broadening the definition of ‘religious leader’, they did not succeed in having the ‘recklessness’ threshold apply in this particular circumstance. They were also unsuccessful in having the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements adopted to any offences in the Act.

Lobbying at the state level

ECAJ and its constituent state bodies have consistently supported the post-2023 and post-Bondi reforms, and lawmakers have referred to their close consultation with these and other Zionist groups in the design of these policies. The only criticism of recent anti-protest laws from pro-Israel groups was that the anti-democratic measures did not go far enough.

Victoria 2022: AIJAC advised the Victorian government to follow UK counter-extremist policy by shifting the focus away from far-right and neo-Nazi ideology toward Islamist and “extreme left, extremist environmentalist (and) anarchist” ideology. The advice suggests a determination from the pro-Israel lobby to weaponise legislation designed for actual extremism to target those openly critical of Israel.

While this exact framework was not explicitly adopted, an ASIO-developed Religiously Motivated Violent Extremism/Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremism framework – which bears a lot of similarities to that proposed by AIJAC – was adopted by Victoria Police in 2022.

Victoria 2024: The Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV) supported a Victorian Bill introducing new hate speech offences, but took issue with a defence included in the Bill for legitimate political expression, noting hopes that “...this defence does not become a catch-all measure that renders these new laws unworkable”.

New South Wales 2025: The “fabricated terrorist plot” in Dural was promptly followed by the rushed passing of a suite of anti-protest and hate crime laws. While the laws had been in planning from the previous month, in consultation with the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies (NSWJBD), the NSW government used the opportunity provided by the Dural hoax to quickly pass them, with little public consultation.

Victoria 2025: JCCV CEO Naomi Levin criticised a Victorian anti-protest Bill for being insufficient and too difficult to enforce. Levin had previously welcomed the announcement of these laws, adding that “the JCCV will also continue to call for protest permits”, which is a clear endorsement of enhanced police powers. The Bill bans face coverings and masks at protests, as well as locks and other devices protestors can use to attach themselves to things as an act of civil disobedience.

Subscribe now

New South Wales 2026: Held in the wake of the Bondi terror attack, the majority of the public submissions to a NSW government inquiry into the use of antisemitic slogans were expressly against the banning of phrases such as “globalise the intifada” and “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”. Despite this, the inquiry supported the banning of the former phrase, with the backing of pro-Israel groups such as ECAJ, AIJAC and NSWJBD.

These groups all detailed a much more expansive list of phrases they felt should be proscribed beyond the two considered by the inquiry, including “death to the IDF”, which the NSWJBD framed as antisemitic, and a warning against the use of the phrase “free Palestine”.

New South Wales 2026: In February, the NSWJBD’s submission to an inquiry titled ‘Measures to combat right-wing extremism in New South Wales’ explicitly endorsed the state’s 2025 three-part hate crimes package as well as the post-Bondi terror attack emergency anti-protest laws. These laws gave the government broad discretion to blanket ban public demonstrations, but were struck down by the Supreme Court in a recent constitutional challenge. The submission made a direct appeal for enhanced police powers, and “calls on the state government to ensure NSW Police are empowered and equipped to enforce such laws”.

When the emergency anti-protest powers were extended beyond their initial term in January, NSWJBD president David Ossip welcomed the decision.

Queensland 2026: The Queensland Jewish Board of Deputies’ (QLDJBD) President Jason Steinberg welcomed Queensland state legislation banning the phrases “globalise the Intifada” and “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, while ECAJ, via submission, also welcomed the Bill but went further in recommending the expansion of offences, such as, once again, lowering the threshold of hate speech from ‘inciting’ to merely ‘promoting’. ECAJ also recommended that the definition of ‘public space’ in which an offence could be prosecuted be loosened to include private and member-only meetings and events, such as closed-door union or activist meetings. This recommendation was not adopted in the final act.

Concluding thoughts

Itemised as separate instances of legislation, it would appear that pro-Israel lobby groups do not always or entirely succeed at having their recommendations adopted. But viewing it as we have outlined – a timeline spanning two decades – we can see a clear pattern that emerges.

Pro-Israel lobby groups have consistently and repeatedly sought to shift the needle on free speech by:

• lowering thresholds of what is considered legally criminal speech e.g. from ‘inciting’ to ‘promoting’ violence and scrapping ‘intent’ protections

• removing traditional defences in criminal law like ‘good faith’ arguments, thus expanding scope to target artists, academics and journalists

• calling for mandatory minimum jail sentences, which is a measure akin to dictatorships and serves as a powerful deterrent against political dissent.

Subscribe now

Failure to achieve their maximum demands in one piece of legislation evidently does not prompt pro-Israel lobby groups to reconsider. They persist, with the next legislation – whether at state or federal level – surfacing almost like-for-like demands to lower thresholds on hate speech and remove legal defences. Overall, they have largely succeeded in helping to gradually chip away at free speech – efforts that accelerated after the commencement of the Israeli genocide in Gaza and show no signs of abating.

Beyond the lobbying efforts that appear on public record, many of these cases illustrate the lengths to which Labor and the Coalition are willing to go to satisfy the demands of the pro-Israel lobby. ‘Emergency’ legislation rushed through with little or no public consultation – as occurred after the NSW Dural bomb hoax and the Bondi terror attack – is an example of how the establishment parties prioritise the wishes of lobbyists over the freedoms of Australians.

Got a tip? Send an email to tips@deepcutnews.com or send an anonymous Signal to @deepcut.25.

One of Melbourne’s most culturally diverse councils shut residents out of a routine council meeting on Monday that debated a motion supporting the Lebanese community amid the ongoing war.

The decision sparked chaos inside and outside the City of Greater Dandenong’s building in Melbourne’s southeast, where roughly two dozen protestors chanted “Let us in!” at the locked doors.

An attendee of Lebanese descent said they arrived at the council building expecting to enter the public gallery, along with others.

“I went at 6pm and found out that the council doors were closed,” they told Deepcut, speaking anonymously.

“Everyone was quite upset, including people who already registered to attend and had sent questions.”

Tense meeting

Inside, Cr. Rhonda Garad challenged CEO Jacqui Weatherill’s decision to close the public gallery.

“It was deeply distressing that the council locked out Dandenong residents who came to support the motion – many from the Lebanese community, who have been greatly affected by the illegal war on their home country,” Cr. Garad told Deepcut.

The meeting began with Weatherill announcing the closure “following advice from Victoria Police”.

“The health and safety of councillors, staff and visitors is of utmost importance, and we will always take action to ensure the safety of our meetings,” she said, adding that the public could watch online or on a screen outside.

Cr. Garad pressed Weatherill to “fully explain” her decision and provide “real and specific evidence” that there was a “risk of reasonable harm”.

After repeated questions, Weatherill shut it down: “I’m not going to answer those questions any further. I’ve made an assessment that, based on the security of the meeting, that the meeting will be closed to the public.”

Cr. Garad later told Deepcut that the “council provided no evidence to justify shutting the community out – no indication of risk, harm, or threats – only that Victoria Police advised a group was coming”.

The (non)security risk

A second resident who sought to attend the hearing claimed that Victoria Police officers present at the scene disclosed the security risk: a counter-protest.

“I approached police as the meeting started and we were all locked out, because on the screen the CEO said police advised of a threat,” the resident told Deepcut.

The resident asked for details on the threat. The officer whom they believed to be in charge allegedly said it was a planned counter-protest that did not show.

During the exchange, the officer also allegedly confirmed that Victoria Police had advised the council there was no longer a threat. The council, however, still denied the public entry.

Both Victoria Police and the City of Greater Dandenong were sent questions relaying this account, but did not respond in time for publication.

The motion

The spark was a motion that Cr. Garad had tabled in solidarity with Lebanese Australians in Greater Dandenong.

“Dandenong is directly connected to global events – our Lebanese community is watching family members killed, villages destroyed and loved ones living in fear,” she said.

Melbourne’s metro area – home to Greater Dandenong – has nearly 50,000 people of Lebanese ancestry, Australia’s second-largest such community. While most live in the northern suburbs, a smaller group calls this multicultural southeast hub home.

“The Lebanese community is a vital part of Dandenong’s success; standing with them in their hour of need is both right and necessary,” Cr. Garad said.

Israeli attacks in the current war have killed at least 2,387 people in Lebanon, including 165 children. On April 8, Israel massacred 357 people in 10 minutes in what is being dubbed as “Black Wednesday”.

Cr. Garad’s motion failed, and was met with a counter-motion from Labor Cr. Sean O’Reilly, which listed residents tied to Israel alongside Lebanon and Palestine. Cr. Garad called Israel’s inclusion “deeply insensitive to the Lebanese community”. O’Reilly’s motion failed on a procedural technicality.

Subscribe now

Feeling excluded

The anonymous attendee saw racial stereotypes at play in the council’s conduct.

“We were characterised as a threat. That reinforced to me the way the media portrays us as terrorists. We felt unworthy to be present in the chamber where our elected representatives are,” they said.

“Yet again we are being silenced, excluded and ignored. The way this council treated Ukrainian refugees was glaringly different from the way it responded to its longstanding Lebanese community.”

Cr. Garad said solidarity motions for suffering communities are routine.

“That’s what responsible councils who represent their constituents – all of their constituents – do. We don’t pick and choose which group of human beings are more deserving of support. But that’s precisely what my fellow councillors did, and I’m ashamed of that,” Cr. Garad said. She described the meeting as “chaotic and poorly handled – Dandenong residents deserve far better”.

For Greater Dandenong’s Lebanese and Arab residents, alienation is growing.

“They did not want us there yet the motion was very much about us and recognising our pain and trauma. Shameful really,” the attendee said.

Check out the latest Deepthink episode with Lebanese-American journalist Rania Khalek, where we go deep on the war in Lebanon. Watch or listen on YouTube, Spotify, Apple or your preferred podcast platform with this RSS feed.

As I write this, One Nation is on track to win the seat of Farrer. The race is down to either One Nation’s David Farley, or community independent Michelle Milthorpe. Before the byelection was called, most Farrer watchers believed Milthorpe would take the seat, given her strong performance against Sussan Ley at the last election. Those hopes have since dimmed, with Farley now considered the frontrunner by those on the ground. This should matter to everyone.

Support principled, ethical, independent journalism. If you can, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Support Deepcut

As with all things One Nation, Farley’s past actions don’t seem to matter. Neither does it seem to matter that he doesn’t know if Gina Rinehart is funding his campaign or not. Farley told a recent candidate forum that he knew where the local donations had come from, but as for Rinehart he was “not sure” that he could answer that question as “it’s not in my pay grade, as they say”.

The Nationals look like preferencing Farley and the Liberals have placed him above Milthorpe, with the Coalition unable to stop shooting itself in the foot, instead continuing to hasten its end by sacrificing itself to prop up the party cannibalising it.

If One Nation wins Farrer, the narrative of their unstoppable march becomes all but locked in. The Victorian election will be next. And while both the last federal and South Australian elections showed that more people voted against conservative candidates than for them, the narrative will be that One Nation is in control. With that comes more mainstream kowtowing to One Nation’s baser instincts. That should worry anyone who cares for democracy.

It should also worry people that Rinehart has found her direct line into the public narrative, having helped pull the Liberals into oblivion. Rinehart has always been about raw power, but this time she has managed to not only hijack the political situation by demonising renewables and the energy transition through political lackeys like Barnson (Barnaby Joyce and Hanson) and co, she is also, on the flip side, making bank.

Rinehart is well on her way to becoming one of the world’s forces in critical minerals and rare earths, as she invests in projects and companies all over the world to lay claim to the future. At the same time, she continues to deny climate science and fund campaigns spreading lies and misinformation about renewable energy.

There is very little curiosity outside of the business pages about why Rinehart is doing this (Sarah Martin at the Guardian a noted exception). Context has very rarely been a forte of mainstream media, which tends to see adding in historical facts and events in their total context as rubbing up against their ideas of ‘objectivity’. That’s always been a problem, but it’s becoming an increasing threat to our democracy, with legacy media – not just in Australia, but also in the US and the UK – showing itself incapable of handling a backslide in democracy, partly because it doesn’t see context and proper analysis of power as necessary.

We very rarely see power examined in Australia, either as a concept, or in context of how it is being used. Instead, stories and narratives tend to appear in siloed vacuums, as if one doesn’t lead into the other.

Advocacy group GetUp! has had some material impact on the ground in Farrer, simply by alerting voters to Hanson’s unwavering support for Donald Trump. None of this is new – Hanson and her acolytes invited media to film them drinking champagne outside Australia’s parliament house when Trump was first elected in 2016. Since then, she has only increased her love of all things Trump, travelling to Mar-a-Lago with Rinehart while speaking at Trump-friendly conservative events. It should probably be mentioned in every story that features Barnson, but it only seems to become relevant when either is directly asked.

Which brings us back to Farrer, where a frontrunning candidate gets away with not being able to answer whether or not Rinehart is contributing to his campaign. (He received applause for the ‘above my pay grade’ answer from the forum attendees.)

There is a view that One Nation’s cosy relationship with figures like Rinehart is seen as a positive among their most ardent supporters, as well as those who have fallen victim to anti-establishment propaganda, which positions billionaires like Rinehart as being only concerned with the national interest and not their own.

But the rest of us should care more. Democracies live and die on high expectations, and it is by design that we have been conditioned to expect low standards from our politicians. The lower the standard we expect, the less likely we are to hold them to account. Power players like Rinehart and Barnson not only know this, they know how to exploit it. It should matter that One Nation’s candidate in Farrer is backing in an unpopular hospital redevelopment proposal (over a greenfield, purpose-built site) and is open to the privatisation of state services, contrary to local interests, because One Nation does not have a health policy.

It should also matter that One Nation’s lack of health policies is not a national issue, at the same time as we are continually hearing about the unstoppable force that is One Nation.

Subscribe now

Just as it should matter that LNP senator Susan McDonald was doing her best impression of a gas company lobbyist at a Senate hearing looking at a 25 per cent gas export tax this week, claiming it would be “a carbon tax on gas” and running defence for an industry that almost no one, outside of those with vested interests, thinks is paying their fair share.

It should be a national scandal that Japan makes billions of dollars on the import tax it places on gas (40 per cent of which comes from Australia). Japan raises around $1.8 billion a year from gas imports, including $710 million on Australian gas and $8 billion in total through its Petroleum and Coal Tax. Australia raises about $1.4 billion from its Petroleum Resource Rent Tax in a good year.

But we are more likely to hear from gas companies and billionaires about why taxing gas in Australia is not a good idea, rather than what Australia is missing out on. And more often than not, we let those speaking on behalf of power in Australia skirt by on with homilies and half-truths.

We should all care about that, a lot more than we do.

Have you checked out our new podcast Deepthink? Episode two just dropped – a deep chat with Lebanese-American journalist Rania Khalek on the war in Lebanon. Watch or listen on YouTube, Spotify, Apple or your preferred podcast platform with this RSS feed.

A fragile ceasefire is barely holding in Lebanon. Israel has declared a “yellow line” of occupation inside Lebanese territory – as it did in Gaza. Israeli forces continue to demolish historic Lebanese villages and religious shrines within the zone it controls, while Hezbollah vows to respond to Israeli violations.

Internally in Lebanon, the divisions run deep. The Lebanese government defied Hezbollah’s objections and protests to hold direct talks with Israel – the first in four decades.

The Beirut government has taken an antagonistic stance toward Hezbollah, and it’s pushing the country to the brink. Even if the ceasefire holds, is civil strife still a possibility? And why is Lebanon perpetually divided?

I discuss this and more with journalist Rania Khalek, who shares insights from Lebanon.

Where to watch/listen

• Video: right here on Substack or YouTube

• Audio: all platforms via Acast (Spotify, Apple, RSS)

Thank you to our paid subscribers for the questions submitted – shared in the last chapter of the episode.

By Sue Higginson

We’ve just had another brilliant win for our democracy in the Supreme Court. NSW Labor Premier Chris Minns has again been defeated and his latest draconian anti-protest crackdown held entirely unlawful.

We warned him but he didn’t listen, or he just didn’t care. Minns’ repeated attempts to weaponise the tools of democracy against the community has become a pattern of abuse. It’s a fundamental failure of his leadership, he needs to stop, and his Labor colleagues have a duty to stop him from ever doing it again.

There are some powerful and seriously consequential aspects to this latest judgement against Minns. One of the strongest rebukes is against the state government’s purported argument for the purpose of those laws. The premier and the attorney general asserted that preventing protest was for the benefit of social cohesion, but the Supreme Court has knocked this back and made clear that preventing protest is the actual threat to social cohesion. Their ‘purpose’ for forcing these invalid laws through was an invalid purpose.

It was a dangerous purpose and at its core was a play into the politics of division, fear and hate. The effect of these invalid laws being used against the community had, and continues to have, real and harmful impacts. Far from being just an attempt to stymie democracy, Minns was briefly successful in undermining our community, oppressing our freedom, and inflaming division.

The Court’s judgement has also revealed the actions of NSW Police at Sydney Town Hall in February to be without authority, and fundamentally unlawful. The police brutality was shocking and something that will be etched into our memories forever. The ‘kettling’ of the community, the deployment of chemical weapons, the brutal assaults and charges of armoured cops against a peaceful community were unjustified and violent attacks.

People are being prosecuted by police who perpetrated violence and harm upon them. The police are currently hunting down members of the community who attended the protest, breaking down their doors and arresting them while they are half naked in bed. Then they are being charged with offences that, on the spectrum of offending, are not serious.

Minns needs to immediately call off these prosecutions. The police must immediately step back – they can’t continue in their role as prosecutors. They are the perpetrators of state violence and now the central legal basis upon which they acted has been struck down. While politics should not ordinarily interfere with police prosecutions, this is not ordinary and the entire political scheme was manufactured by Premier Chris Minns and his cabinet colleagues.

Regrettably, rather than take a principled position in response to this landmark ruling of the Court, and see the monumental error of their ways, the Minns executive will now try to double down. They will say they invoked the Major Events Declaration, which provided police with excessive and arbitrary powers, for the purpose of Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s visit. They will argue that this provides legal cover for the police violence and harmful prosecutions. Once again I warn Minns this is wrong, don’t do it. Stop now rather than digging yourself, your government, the police and the people further down the dark hole of authoritarianism and improper purpose.

At some point Minns will need to take responsibility for the police violence at Town Hall. The government under Minns enacted bad laws, the police acted on the command of unlawful directions, they were emboldened and some were violent. People’s rights to march were trespassed upon and people have been harmed, and many of them will have the legal grounds to demand compensation.

The premier has opened the door wide for civil claims of damages to be launched and won against NSW – and at the end of the day it is our community who will have to pay for those damages, while Minns gets to swagger back to his office, as unaccountable perpetrators often do.

The arrogance and entitlement practiced by Chris Minns in this is not surprising, not from a man who was educated through exclusive private schooling, and by attending Ivy League private university in the United States. The same guy that went on an all-expenses paid tour of Israel hosted by the Zionist lobby, who received an award from the Israeli president and rolled out the red carpet for him here in NSW (all while Israel is committing genocide against Palestinian people). The same guy who has ignored and punched down on diverse communities across NSW while singling out Zionist entities for special protection by the state.

Subscribe now

Never forget that Minns is the guy who tried to stop our 300,000-strong March for Humanity across the Harbour Bridge, and even on reflection was not able to see the goodness in our humanity. He just doesn’t seem to get the breadth and depth of a vibrant and diverse democracy.

It’s perhaps not surprising that this premier has acted the way that he has, but there is a train of accountability coming down the line, and Minns shouldn’t be surprised when it gets to his stop.

Sue Higginson is a Greens member of the NSW Legislative Council

Deepcut’s journalism is free to read because our readers choose to fund our work. If you want to support fearless Australian journalism, consider becoming a paid subscriber or making a donation today.

Support Deepcut

Welcome to our regular weekly wrap to ensure you’re properly informed of news that matters (with some analysis).

War in West Asia

By Antoun

• Trump scapegoating NATO for his defeat. There’s no masking the colossal blunder that was the decision on February 28 to launch a war on Iran, or that the decision was a result of Israel’s decades-long insistence on such a war – a fact even Hillary Clinton noted this week. “I also know from personal experience how Netanyahu has tried to get every American president to agree to have an open-ended war with Iran,” she said.

  • But there was no stating the obvious for Trump. His chosen scapegoat, it seems, are the Europeans for refusing to help him in a war he started and could not win.

  

  • Trump even turned on one of his erstwhile European allies, far-right Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, after she labelled Trump’s attack on Pope Leo XIV “unacceptable”. “I thought she was brave, but I was wrong,” he said.

  • His attack on Meloni coincided with Italy’s decision to suspend a defence agreement with Israel. Meloni’s shifting stance on Israel – once their closest ally in Europe – comes amid mounting public pressure, with Italy witnessing regular mass protests and strike action against Israel’s atrocities in Gaza. A September poll showed 59 percent of Italians wanted the government to cut ties with Israel.

• Backlash against the US blockade. No sooner had the US announced it was blockading Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz than Saudi Arabia lodged complaints. The Wall Street Journal reports the Saudis fear Iran could respond by asking its Houthi allies in Yemen to block the Red Sea, further crippling global trade. Saudi has been diverting its energy exports to the Red Sea, bypassing Iran’s control of the strait. China too has made it clear it disapproves of US attempts to block Chinese ships from transiting the strait, calling it “dangerous and irresponsible”. As of writing, the US says it has turned back at least eight ships.

• Israel tries to spin loss into win. Netanyahu’s government is also in PR overdrive trying to camouflage its shortcomings. Israel’s defence minister, Yisrael Katz, said this week that Israel was stronger than ever, lauding its Iran operation as a success. Except that doesn’t quite stack up to reality. Israel has been at war since late 2023 and has failed in almost every arena it has entered, overstretching its military to – as we’ve previously reported – the point of exhaustion. It has failed to cleanse Gaza or defeat Hamas, it’s suffering casualties in Lebanon and its war on Iran appears to have only empowered Iran – not to mention Israel’s shattered global standing and dramatic loss of support among the US public (left and right).

  • Netanyahu empowering loyalists at the expense of competence. The appointment this week of Belarus-born Roman Gofman as Mossad’s new head sheds light on why Israel – a state historically known for strategic calculations – is acting irrationally. Gofman’s appointment has been blasted by corners of Israeli media as “a profound rupture” in the traditional selection of Mossad’s leadership – from individuals “rooted in deep analytical rigour” to, effectively, Netanyahu loyalists “with zero prior experience in the intelligence community”. That Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s most prominent messianic extremist, welcomed his appointment as a man of “true Zionism” says a lot about the elevation of extremists to important positions and its detrimental effect on Israeli decision-making.

• Fierce battle in south Lebanon amid negotiations. An intense battle is ongoing between Israeli forces and Hezbollah fighters in the town of Bint Jbeil, close to the border. Israeli forces surrounded the town several days ago amid conflicting reports from both sides. The Israeli military says it is close to capturing the town and has killed at least 100 Hezbollah fighters, while Lebanese media say Hezbollah is standing its ground.

  • Crucial, symbolic battle. Bint Jbeil carries a lot of symbolism as the stage where a similar pivotal battle took place in the 2006 war in which Israeli forces were defeated. It was also where slain Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah delivered a victory speech after the Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000.

  • Israeli casualties. Evacuation helicopters carrying wounded Israeli soldiers are flying into Rambam Hospital in Haifa with such regularity it reminded one hospital official “of the days of the First and Second Lebanon wars, with helicopters constantly evacuating wounded to us”. Ten of the recently wounded were paratroopers fighting in Bint Jbeil.

  • Destroying villages. Israel is applying its Gaza model of total annihilation to southern Lebanese villages, with widespread destruction captured by satellite – see below.

    

    Before and after – the village of al-Khiam (which we previously wrote about in September):

    Before and after – the town of Bint Jbeil:

  • Negotiations ‘positive’. Both the Israeli and Lebanese delegations walked away from talks in Washington – the first between the two countries since 1983 – with positive impressions. The Israeli ambassador to the US, Yechiel Leiter, said afterwards that, “We are both united in liberating Lebanon from an occupation power dominated by Iran called Hezbollah”. The US, Israel and Lebanon then issued a joint statement in which Lebanon said it “underscores the principles of territorial integrity and full state sovereignty, while calling for a ceasefire and concrete measures to address and alleviate the severe humanitarian crisis that the country continues to endure as a result of the ongoing conflict”.

  • Hezbollah opposed, Netanyahu buying time. Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem slammed the talks as “an act of submission and surrender”. “How strange you are!” he said of the Lebanese government. “By God, you neither fight nor allow anyone to fight, you neither confront nor allow anyone to confront.” Meanwhile, Haaretz reports that Netanyahu is using the talks to buy time and show goodwill to the US while continuing the invasion of Lebanon.

• Hind Rajab retribution in south Lebanon. The commander of the 52nd battalion of Israel’s 401st brigade, Daniel Ella, was severely injured fighting in south Lebanon. He’s of significance as – according to Dyab Abou Jahjah, the founder of the Hind Rajab Foundation – this is the battalion responsible for killing five-year-old Hind Rajab in Gaza in January 2024.

Donate to Deepcut

Democracy in Australia

By Alex

• Taylor goes far-right on migration. Liberal leader Angus Taylor has been widely condemned for proposing a Trump-style overhaul of Australia’s migration system. The Opposition’s Australian Values Migration Plan, unveiled by Taylor at the Menzies Research Centre on Tuesday, would create a legally binding ‘values test’ as a visa condition, allow screening of migrants’ social media accounts and make learning English mandatory for holders of permanent visas. Taylor claimed the 1,700 Palestinian refugees who have arrived in Australia since October 2023 are “a high risk to our nation”, and claimed that migrants from liberal democracies were more likely to hold “Australian values compared to those from other places ruled by fundamentalists, extremists and dictators”.
  
  Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia Aftab Malik said Taylor’s comments relied on “Islamophobic tropes that vilify and dehumanise the Palestinian community”. Asylum Seeker Resource Centre deputy CEO Jana Favero called the policy “a hateful attack on migrant communities... with no basis or evidence”, while Greens Senator David Shoebridge said the plan was “a 2026 version of the White Australia Policy”.

  • Quick take: Like Sussan Ley before him, the only trick in Angus Taylor’s book is to stoke hatred and division in an effort to keep Andrew Hastie and One Nation at bay. The damage their bigoted grandstanding is doing to Australian society will be felt long after they themselves have been forgotten. A miserable legacy for two national embarrassments.

• Secret arms exports challenged in court. Three Palestinian human rights bodies are attempting to force Defence Minister Richard Marles to reveal details about Australian arms exports to Israel. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Al-Haq and the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights filed a Federal Court application last week compelling Marles to produce documents relating to any Israeli arms export permits, arguing that any approvals “may be used to commit or facilitate serious human rights abuses”.
  
  A spokesperson for the Australian Centre for International Justice, which is representing the Palestinian groups in court, said the public “cannot accept the government’s ‘trust-us’ attitude to something as grave as potential Australian complicity in genocide”. In July, Declassified Australia revealed that Australia was continuing to supply arms materiel to Israel.

• Protester fights ‘crazy’ speech law. A 70-year-old man charged under Queensland’s new ‘proscribed phrases’ law has unsuccessfully tried to plead insanity on the grounds that “the charge is insane”. Jim Dowling was arrested at a March protest outside Boeing’s Brisbane headquarters for displaying a banner reading “From the river to the sea, Brisbane will be free of Boeing”.
  
  Appearing before Brisbane Arrest Court on Tuesday, Dowling said he would “like to plead insanity [as] I think the charge is insane and anyone who takes it seriously is a bit sus as well”. Speaking to supporters outside court, Dowling said “the majority of people in this country would agree with me that the law is crazy”.

• Tony Abbott laments Viktor Orbán. Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott has paid tribute to outgoing Hungarian President Viktor Orbán, who was defeated in a landslide in Sunday’s election. In power for 16 years, Orbán was one of the global far-right’s most lauded figures for his repression of democratic freedoms, xenophobic rhetoric against migrants, and muzzling of the free press.
  
  Abbott, who became a Senior Visiting Fellow of the pro-Orbán Danube Institute in 2023, said Orban as “dead right” to oppose EU free migration policies, asking: “Why should a sovereign nation be bullied by Brussels into policies that would jeopardise its future as a distinct people?”

Got a tip? Send an email to tips@deepcutnews.com or send an anonymous Signal to @deepcut.25.

Australian politics is full of vague euphemisms. One of those is “the lobby”. Whether it’s the gambling lobby, the gun lobby or the fossil fuel lobby, this language is used to describe a vague and ill-defined group working to shape government and bureaucratic opinion, often in a way that is self-interested, anti-democratic and against the broader public interest.

Sometimes this vague fuzziness, however, can become conspiratorial or even harmful. In the case of the Israel lobby, for example, Bart Shteinman of the Jewish Council of Australia says people can inadvertently begin to repeat anti-Semitic tropes about the Jewish community.

“Globally, most Zionists are not Jewish,” Shteinman said. “Organisations within what would be considered the Israel lobby include a range of people from different faiths and backgrounds. They’re by no means restricted to Jewish people.”

To help cut through the confusion, Deepcut has put together this short explainer on what lobbying is and how it works.

What exactly is lobbying?

The official definition is narrow and only captures the most direct and obvious efforts to shape the thinking and decision of officials, usually within the halls of parliament.

The Lobbying Code of Conduct defines lobbying in Australia as “communications with Australian Government representatives in an effort to influence federal government decision-making”.

Under the code, anyone who “acts on behalf of third-party clients” to lobby Australian government officials must register. This entitles them to an orange identification badge to enter Parliament House and move freely.

There are 716 registered lobbyists in Australia in what is considered to be a growing industry.

Outside this definition, there is a whole range of informal activity that could be considered lobbying as it seeks to influence the reasoning and decision making of Australian bureaucrats, political leadership and even public opinion.

Tell me about ‘the Israel lobby’

What is commonly referred to as ‘the Israel lobby’ in Australia is distinct from its well-known counterpart in the US – the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Whereas AIPAC tends to operate as a single, top-down organisation with significant financial resources that are deployed to promote specific candidates and swing campaigns, Shteinman says that in Australia there is a wider ecosystem of groups filling this role that act in more “decentralised” ways.

“You can define the Israel lobby by looking at organisations who see it as part of their role to publicly advocate for the state of Israel and political Zionism,” Shteinman says.

Which organisations belong to this ecosystem?

Much of the campaigning by Zionist groups originates outside parliament, among broadly aligned, but separate organisations.

Larger, peak groups such as the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) and the Australia Israel and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) tend to set the general direction with their public statements.

At the state level, there are groups such as the New South Wales Board of Deputies, the Queensland Jewish Board of Deputies and the Jewish Community Council of Victoria. There’s also the Community Security Group, a volunteer-based Jewish security group that receives training in Israel and is permitted to carry firearms. CSG was allegedly founded decades ago with help of a former CIA agent.

Smaller, more explicitly activist organisations, such as the Australian Jewish Association (AJA), J-United and the Australian Union of Jewish Students – an organisation affiliated to ZFA – will often take their cues from these core organisations but will still pursue their own agendas.

There are also several active Zionist groups that are not explicitly Jewish organisations and have support among Christian Zionists, including Advance, Better Australia and Never Again is Now, each pursuing their own agendas and strategies. In addition, there are some international organisations with a large Australian presence, such as Stand With Us and Combating Anti-Semitism.

“Australia is not America,” Shteinman says. “In terms of how the Israel lobby works, to some extent I think, like other lobbies, it’s the product of long-standing relationships.”

“But a lot of the way in which the Israel lobby acts [in Australia] is not through shadowy secret engagements, it’s through these very public, open pressure campaigns. No one’s hiding it.”

What do you mean by long-standing relationships?

These organisations often have overlapping memberships and officials involved with multiple groups. These same individuals have their own networks, thanks to the businesses they operate, the boards they sit on and the institutions they engage with.

Better Australia, for instance, is an organisation that grew out of Better Council and was created specifically to attack Greens and Teal political figures, ostensibly over their criticism of Israel.

Headed by Labor Party member Sophie Calland, it also included Yaron Finkelstein, former advisor to Scott Morrison, Alex Polson, a former Liberal staffer, and former NSW Labor Treasurer Eric Roozendall – a figure associated with the Labor right.

Finkelstein today serves as a director of the right-wing Menzies Research Centre and operates his own advisory firm, Society Advisory. Polson is CEO of DBK Advisory. These consultancy arrangements allow former political advisors to maintain their access to the corridors of power, even when they’re out of office.

Both Finkelstein and Roozendall have previously served on the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies. Similarly, anti-Semitism envoy Jillian Segal previously served as the president of ECAJ. Her husband, John Roth, donated $50,000 to support right-wing pressure group Advance.

In other cases, ZFA President Jeremy Leibler’s law firm offered regular, ongoing free legal advice to former Coalition leader Peter Dutton. Along with ECAJ, Leibler’s ZFA “frequently communicates” with Foreign Minister Penny Wong and her staff as part of a long-term effort to cultivate a relationship.

Subscribe now

How do they operate?

The activities of these groups tend to depart from what would be considered traditional “lobbying”, with the focus of recent campaigns more about compelling certain action or deterring criticism.

Many of these groups, or individuals associated with them, have been active in lobbying on hate speech and anti-protest laws through submissions to Bills or parliamentary inquiries, and in some cases direct consultation with those in power. This is where access – cultivated over years of relationship building within both Labor and the Coalition – becomes useful.

Other campaigns may involve SLAPP suits or the weaponisation of internal complaints processes to force critics to spend time defending their actions, and some involve nakedly political manoeuvring.

During the recent visit by Israeli President Isaac Herzog in the wake of the Bondi massacre, Shteinman alleges ZFA extended the invitation as a strategy to wedge Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

Another focus has been the media and cultural institutions, such as writers’ festivals and art exhibitions, where ideas are discussed. Pressure campaigns – such as those recently targeting Randa Abdel-Fattah and Grace Tame – appear aimed at generating negative media coverage that spooks decision makers with bad press and panic financial backers.

Whatever the activity, the perception is often that the Israel lobby is a vast and powerful machine. But as the backlash against the Adelaide and Bendigo writers festivals, and Antoinette Lattouf’s court win against the ABC show, the reality is these groups are far from invincible.

“It’s really important to make people aware and not feed an agenda of fear, because that is what they’re seeking to achieve,” Shteinman says “They want to make people feel as if they no longer have the power or the right to resist it. They want people to think that it’s all lost.”

“It is by no means a lobby that has unstoppable and omni-present influence.”

Got a tip? Send an email to tips@deepcutnews.com or send an anonymous Signal to @deepcut.25.

Deepcut’s journalism is free to read because our readers choose to fund our work. If you want to support fearless Australian reporting, consider becoming a paid subscriber or making a donation today.

Support Deepcut

A law student, a musician and a frontline climate activist are among the 17 Australians sailing in the latest maritime convoy attempting to break Israel’s naval siege of Gaza.

The Global Sumud Flotilla, a fleet of more than 100 ships seeking to bring food, medical supplies and construction material to the Gaza Strip, is setting sail from numerous Mediterranean ports this week. More than 3,000 activists from 51 countries have joined the flotilla, dwarfing the convoy that sailed in August and September 2025.

“We believe that we’ve got the best chance yet of any flotilla that’s ever attempted to reach Gazan shores because of our size and scale,” said Zach Schofield, a climate activist and Flotilla participant at a press conference last week.

Ethan Floyd, a Wiradjuri, Ngiyampaa and Wailwan man, is a student and community organiser. He decided to sail to Gaza after hearing crew members of last year’s convoy speak at a rally for Palestine.

“When the last flotilla was in the headlines, just seeing people taking concrete action was really exciting,” he told Deepcut. “There’s often a feeling in organising spaces that just speaking up isn’t enough anymore. If you’ve got the time and capacity and ability to put your body on the line and take a physical stand against Israel, that’s something I think is really important to do.”

Also sailing on the flotilla is Jayden Kitchener-Waters, a Gomeroi and Ngiyampaa man who was fired from the NSW Premier’s Department after he displayed pro-Palestinian slogans on his guitar ahead of a scheduled performance at a departmental event.

“We’ve all watched this genocide from the comfort of our phones. We’ve all shared this feeling of hopelessness,” Kitchener-Waters said on social media.

“It’s important we harness these feelings so we can use them to continue pressuring our governments, decision-makers and ‘leaders’.”

Donate to Deepcut

The last Australian cohort of Sumud activists returned with allegations of torture, abuse and sexual assault at the hands of Israeli soldiers and prison guards. After being intercepted in international waters by the Israeli navy in September, they were held for more than a week in Ktzi’ot – an Israeli prison in the Negev desert notorious for its human rights abuses. They also claimed that Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s far-right national security minister, told them in front of TV cameras, ‘Shut the fuck up or we’ll gas you’.

Israeli human rights bodies have exhaustively detailed cases of Palestinian prisoners in Ktzi’ot dying of starvation, internal injuries, and the denial of medical treatment for easily treatable conditions, as well as Israeli prison guards routinely raping and sexually assaulting Palestinians.

Floyd says the new group of Sumud activists have made a conscious choice not to be deterred by the “horror stories” of Ktzi’ot.

“Every time a flotilla makes it in sight of Gaza and is intercepted by the Israelis, the political goal is always to deter future participants – to make people think that it’s far too dangerous to do,” he says.

“They want us to come back to Australia and tell this tale of horror so people don’t do it again. But if we are to meaningfully commit ourselves to the liberation of Palestinians, the end of the genocide and the end of the apartheid system, we cannot let ourselves be frightened or deterred by these stories.

“Our experience will be awful, but it will be the five-star version of what Palestinians face every day in those prisons. Because we carry certain privileges – western passports, citizenship of a country that’s an ally of Israel – we can use those privileges for the benefit of people who don’t have them.”

An additional risk factor for this flotilla is that Australia’s consular services in Israel have been largely suspended due to the ongoing war with Iran. Sumud activists say the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) has warned them they should not expect Australian consular officials to visit them in person while they are held in Ktzi’ot.

“Their sort of wry advice to us was that we should still be able to get through to the Embassy via the phone lines,” Floyd told Deepcut.

“We asked them, ‘Are you seriously telling us that the Israelis are going to let us use a phone?’ And one of the DFAT officials leaned back in their chair and said, ‘Well, I’m not saying that, but try if you can’.”

Amnesty International Australia has urged the government to “do everything in its power to ensure the safety of the 17 Australians on board”.

“The Australian government, together with other states and Israeli authorities, must ensure safe passage and protection for these peaceful activists and human rights defenders,” said Mohamed Duar, Amnesty International Australia’s spokesperson for the occupied Palestinian territories. “There must be no repeat of Israel’s unlawful interceptions, arbitrary detentions, and inhumane treatment seen in 2025, nor the abuse inflicted on activists last October.”

In lieu of consular support, Floyd believes the next best way to ensure the safety of Sumud activists is by the Australian public “heaping pressure” on the government to advocate on their behalf.

“If people are ringing DFAT, their local MPs, the foreign minister’s office, that creates pressure,” he says. “Not only on our behalf, but on behalf of the people of Gaza who are still under siege.”

Check out our new podcast, Deepthink. We speak with Senator David Shoebridge on the Iran war, the Australia-US alliance and the surging UK Greens. Listen on Spotify, Apple, Deezer or watch on YouTube.

In the week before Easter, I attended the Australian Domestic Gas Outlook 2026 conference in Sydney.

I thought it might be entering the lion’s den. It was like being surrounded by kittens.

I was standing in for my boss at The Australia Institute, Richard Denniss, who was unable to attend for the session in which I was interviewed on stage. Beforehand I spoke to someone who had been at the conference all day. They told me The Australia Institute was enemy number one – hated by all for our pushing of the ACTU’s 25 per cent tax on gas exports and for our ongoing campaign against the gas industry with our ”Big gas is taking the piss” campaign.

It’s nice to be noticed, I guess. And given the gas industry is now straight out copying our adverts about the beer excise, it’s also nice of them to let everyone know we have hit a nerve.

Not having appeared before at such an event full of those who openly despise my position, I made sure I was loaded up with data and numbers and lines for the full-throated response I was sure to get.

After all, gas exporters had talked a big game in the sessions beforehand – how investment would end, the industry would be crushed, national security would be in danger.

But all I got was a whimper.

For an industry so used to being feared, or protested, my rather obvious contempt was perhaps off-putting. They are not used to people shrugging with ambivalence at the suggestion that investment would dry up were an exports tax introduced.

But hollow threats don’t deserve fear or too much concern. After all, the gas is here. If they want it, they can’t go elsewhere — do they think Qatar or Venezuela have suddenly become safe places to invest? And should I be worried if, for example, wholly Japanese-owned INPEX — which exports more gas to Japan each year than is consumed in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia combined — leaves?

I guess we’d miss out on all the royalties they pay. Oh, wait! They don’t pay any.

I guess we’d miss out on all the PRRT they pay. Oh, wait! They haven’t paid any.

I guess we’d miss out on all the company tax they pay. Oh, wait! Its major project, Ichthys LNG, hasn’t paid any.

Subscribe now

Threatening me with a good time is not the way to scare me.

But what about all those shortages that will occur if they leave? Please.

The figures in the Australian Energy Market Operator’s 2026 Gas Statement of Opportunities released last month show domestic demand for gas is falling – by 2045 it will be half what it was last year, and the forecasts are falling at a steeper rate than expected a year ago:

In the end the event was a bit of a soft affair.

I got a couple of questions from the audience – one on whether a reservation policy would be just as good (fine, but no revenue, so no), and one who asked why, if gas companies are so profitable, their share price isn’t as high as it was back in 2022-23 when the Russian invasion of Ukraine sent world gas prices to record highs. I suggested it was not much of a quandary as to why share prices are not that high.

I also noted that I bet everyone in the room knew how well their share prices had gone since the Iran war.

Subscribe now

I exited the stage to what could best be described as scattered applause and mostly the silence of a room filled with oil and gas executives who had no response to someone who had just spent half an hour calling bullshit on their industry.

The response reinforced what I had suspected – the industry’s power comes from bluster and noise, not from reality. Their threats are hollow, and the government needs to realise it has nothing to fear from these companies.

Next month’s budget will be an absolute marker for how the Albanese government is regarded for years to come. And should they squib it, there will be many commentators — and, perhaps, Labor supporters — pointing out that they could not afford another mining campaign against them.

But I have seen them up close – they are not the scary ones. They are the ones who are now afraid. And they should be. For too long they have convinced voters and politicians that they are vital, that they are the ones with the power.

They are not. And it is time a government also called bullshit on their bluster and noise.

Got a tip? Send an email to tips@deepcutnews.com or send an anonymous Signal to @deepcut.25.

Welcome to our regular weekly wrap to ensure you’re properly informed of news that matters (with some analysis).

Iran and Lebanon wars

By Antoun

• Bloody massacres in Lebanon. Israel conducted its most ferocious airstrikes against Lebanon since the war began, killing at least 254 people and wounding 1,165, Al Jazeera reports. Israel defied the ceasefire deal with powerful strikes across the country, despite Hezbollah and all other parties to the war on Iran ceasing their attacks. Desperate pleas were issued for blood donations throughout Lebanon amid overcrowding in hospitals.

  • Shocking brutality. Among the dead were three girls killed in a bombed house in the town of Aadloun in south Lebanon, a whole family in Hermel in the north-east, and a radio journalist – Ghada al-Dayekh – of the Voice of Joy. Separately, Israeli forces bombed residents awaiting a funeral procession in a town called Shmuster, killing at least 11 and wounding 20. Israel also attacked several civil defence (emergency response) centres, including a building in Tyre used by emergency workers to transport the wounded to hospitals.

  • Strikes hit central Beirut. Residents in Beirut were in a state of shock and panic as Israeli strikes hit numerous neighbourhoods in central Beirut and its southern suburbs. Israeli warplanes also struck areas in the Bekaa in the country’s east and continued its aggression in south Lebanon. Lebanese state media reports that Israeli forces also detonated houses in Lebanese villages along the border, including Naqoura and Aita al-Shaab. Israel says it hit 100 Hezbollah sites in 10 minutes, branding its assault “Operation Eternal Darkness”. Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar newspaper played with those words in a headline, “100 massacres in 10 minutes”.

    • Quick take: Israel had invaded Lebanon without the bulk of its air force, which had been in use against Iran. The ceasefire returned Israel’s full air power, allowing for a ruthless wave of airstrikes.

• Netanyahu rejects ceasefire in Lebanon. Hours after the two-week ceasefire deal had been announced, Israeli prime minister and wanted war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu openly rejected the ceasefire’s application to Lebanon. This came despite Pakistan’s Prime Ninister Shebaz Sharif saying Lebanon was included in the ceasefire, and Israeli security officials confirming that fact to Israeli media.

  • Trump says no, negotiator says yes Lebanon included in deal. The US president said Lebanon was not part of the ceasefire, despite a regional official who took part in the negotiations also confirming that Lebanon was part of the deal. Spain and France rebuked Netanyahu, insisting that Israel cease its attacks on the country. The Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, said Israel’s “contempt for life and international law is intolerable”.

  • Iran closes Strait of Hormuz. Iran announced it was closing the strait amid Israel’s ceasefire violations. “The White House’s claim that Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire is an example of reneging on the agreement,” Iran’s foreign ministry said. Direct talks slated for Friday in Islamabad are also in jeopardy, with Iran’s parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf saying a “bilateral ceasefire or negotiations is unreasonable” given the violations.

• Israel caught by surprise. Israel agreed to the ceasefire but perhaps begrudgingly. An Israeli official told Israel’s public broadcaster that they “were surprised by Trump’s decision. We received updates in the final moments when everything seemed finalised”.

  • Internal Israeli pressure. As soon as the ceasefire was announced, Netanyahu’s internal opponents came out in fury. Chief among them was opposition leader Yair Lapid, who said, “There has never been such a political disaster in all of our history. Israel wasn’t even at the table when decisions were made concerning the core of our national security.” He went on to say that Netanyahu “failed politically, failed strategically, and didn’t meet a single one of the goals that he himself set”.

    • Quick take: Netanyahu, personally, needs forever wars. As soon as the fighting stops, the domestic focus in Israel will turn to Netanyahu’s security failures, his corruption trial and a looming election later this year.

• Iran has already won the war. The two-week ceasefire deal – agreed to at the last minute through Pakistani mediation – reportedly allows Iran, along with Oman, to charge ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Winning control of this vital strait – through which 20 per cent of the world’s oil transits – is a major strategic win for Iran, which had listed this as part of its 10-point proposal to end the war.

  • US Senator Chris Murphy called Iran’s control over the strait, if true, “a history-changing win for Iran”.

• What is Iran’s 10-point plan? According to Tasnim news agency, an Iranian outlet, the plan is as follows:

  • US commitment to non-aggression

  • Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz

  • Acceptance of Iranian uranium enrichment

  • Removal of all primary sanctions on Iran

  • Removal of all secondary sanctions on Iran

  • Termination of all UN Security Council resolutions against Iran

  • Termination of all IAEA Board of Governors decisions against Iran

  • War reparations paid to Iran

  • Withdrawal of US combat forces from the region

  • Cessation of war on all fronts, including Lebanon.

• From “maximalist” to acceptance? A day earlier, a US official called this a “maximalist” position from Iran. US special envoy, and ardent Zionist, Steve Witkoff reportedly called it “a catastrophe”. But in agreeing to the ceasefire, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said “the American side, despite all its outward threats, has accepted these principles as the basis for negotiations and has submitted to the will of the Iranian nation”. It also “emphasised that this does not mean the end of the war – Iran will only accept an end to the war when, given the acceptance of the principles of Iran’s 10-point plan, the details are also finalised in negotiations”.

• Trump’s hubris masked as desperation. And not a very convincing mask. If anything, the escalation of his unhinged posts on Truth Social over the last month only made it obvious that he was losing a war he started. It was poorly disguised desperation throughout – from pleading then lambasting NATO allies for not helping; to issuing hollow threats only to back down with repeated deadline extensions; to this week’s extraordinary, genocidal threat that ‘a whole civilisation will die tonight’ before again backing down. And not only did he back down, he seemingly agreed to Iran’s demands as “the basis for negotiations”.

  • Trump demonstrated ‘genocidal intent’ with ‘civilisation’ threat. Renowned political scientist and professor at the University of Chicago, John Mearsheimer, was among the first to point out that, under international law, Trump’s threat “reflects genocidal intent”. “Indeed, this is rhetoric you would expect from Adolf Hitler, not from the president of the US,” he wrote.

  • Trump’s unhinged behaviour putting the world at risk. Democrat leaders, including pro-Israel supporters such as Nancy Pelosi and Hakeem Jeffries, are calling on Republicans to “invoke the 25th Amendment”, which gives the US Cabinet the power to declare a president “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”. So too are his former MAGA loyalists such as Marjorie Greene-Taylor, who also called for the 25th amendment, and Candace Owens, who called him a “genocidal lunatic”.

• Does this mean the war is over? No. Iran has made clear that war will resume if its 10-point plan is not met, and has so far pointed out three violations – Israel’s attacks on Lebanon one of them. Netanyahu also seems bent on wrecking the ceasefire, affirming that the deal was not an end to the war. If Trump is unable or unwilling to rein in Netanyahu, the war could resume sooner than hoped.

Democracy in Australia

By Alex

• News Corp faces race hate suit. A new Federal Court lawsuit alleges that News Corp media outlets “engaged in racial hatred and discrimination against Palestinians of all faiths and Arab Muslims”. Australia Palestine Advocacy Network President Nasser Mashni, lawyer Engy Abdelsalam and five anonymous complainants allege that News Corp and several of its media subsidiaries breached the Racial Discrimination Act by “publish[ing] and disseminat[ing] atrocity propaganda” that created hatred and contempt for “Muslim, Arab and/or Palestinian Australians”. Mashni said News Corp and its titles had “engaged in hateful, extreme, dangerous, divisive and racist conduct, and it’s time that they stopped being treated as credible news sources”.

• Billionaires, conservatives back Roberts-Smith. Gina Rinehart, Elon Musk, Tony Abbott and Pauline Hanson are among the prominent figures lamenting the arrest of former soldier Ben Roberts-Smith. Roberts-Smith was arrested at Sydney airport on Tuesday and remanded in custody in Silverwater Correctional Complex after being charged with five counts of war crimes, including murder. Rinehart – who has vocally supported Roberts-Smith since allegations against him were first published by Nine newspapers in 2018 – told the Sydney Morning Herald that Roberts-Smith deserved “compassion and the Aussie spirit”. Writing on Twitter/X, Musk said that Roberts-Smith’s arrest “sounds insane”. Seven West Media chair Kerry Stokes – who was ordered to pay $13.5 million in costs to Nine’s legal team last year after bankrolling Robert-Smith’s unsuccessful defamation lawsuit – declined to comment on his arrest.

  Subscribe now

• ‘Banned phrase’ user appears in court. The first person to be formally charged under Queensland’s new prohibition of the phrase ‘from the river to the sea’ has vowed to fight the law in court. Activist Liam Parry was arrested last month after giving a speech using the now-banned phrase during a rally outside Queensland’s parliament. Dozens of supporters attended a rally in support of Parry outside Brisbane’s Roma Street Magistrates Court on Wednesday, where a 70-year-old man was warned by police to dispose of a sign reading “From the sea to the river, Palestine will live forever”. Speaking to reporters outside the courthouse, Parry said “people won’t accept their civil rights and civil liberties being taken away”.

Check out our new podcast, Deepthink. We speak with Senator David Shoebridge on the Iran war, the Australia-US alliance and the surging UK Greens. Listen on Spotify, Apple, Deezer or watch on YouTube.

Deepcut’s journalism is free to read because our readers choose to fund our work. If you want to support fearless Australian reporting, consider becoming a paid subscriber or making a donation today.

Support Deepcut

National Press Club CEO Maurice Reilly has hit out at critics of the press club’s decision to host the Israeli ambassador, saying those concerned about Israel’s actions should “take it up with your elected representatives”.

In a mass email to people who objected to the invitation to Israeli envoy Hillel Newman, Reilly blasted what he called “conspiracy theories” that the press club is “captured” by Israeli or Jewish lobby groups, or biased toward Israeli speakers.

Newman addressed the National Press Club (NPC) on March 31, sparking a wave of condemnation that the envoy of a state found to be committing genocide was granted such a prominent platform.

The NPC CEO alleged that a number of the complaints were “vile and abusive, including antisemitism and hate speech,” which the press club intended to forward to the Australian Federal Police “and other national security agencies”.

“The authors of these emails should reflect that their communications are read by our front line and mainly young and female staff. They are not fair game, and the club takes its duty of care very seriously to protect them,” Reilly said.

“I am sure you are aware [of] the hate speech legislation [that] has been passed by the Australian Parliament.”

Reilly did not share examples of antisemitism in his emails, nor clarified whether he referred to criticism of Israel as antisemitic.

He explicitly denied a frequent claim made in the complaints that the press club “is ‘captured’ by the Israeli and Jewish lobby groups such as the EAJC [sic], AIJAC, ZFA and AJA and Defence companies that supply the Israel Government”, which he said had “no basis in truth”.

“The press club board is independent of any lobby group. That also includes APAN, AFOPA and Free Palestine and similar entities,” he said.

The press club boasts more than 80 corporate and government sponsors, including several international arms manufacturers that supply weapons and military equipment to the Israeli government.

Make a donation

‘Take it up with elected representatives’

Addressing what he termed the “civil and constructive” objections the press club received, Reilly defended Newman’s invitation on free speech and public interest grounds.

“The core complaint is that Ambassador Newman should not have been invited because he or his government offends you,” Reilly said.

“Unfortunately, free speech is not without its challenges, but censorship in this case is an anathema to democracy, media freedom and the National press club. You should never conclude that any speaker at the National Press Club in our 63-year history is an endorsed position of the club’s board or management.”

“If you have an issue with Israel being represented in Australia, then you take it up with [your] elected representatives,” he said.

He also cited previous press club appearances by UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, former UN Commission of Inquiry chair Navi Pillay, human rights experts Chris Sidoti and Professor Ben Saul and UNICEF Australia global spokesperson James Elder as evidence against the criticism that the Press Club “is biased toward Israeli speakers”.

“Most critics would be hard-pressed to suggest that any of these speakers as ‘Friends of Israel’,” Reilly said.

Reilly also revealed that the press club has formally invited Abu Al-Izz, the State of Palestine’s new ambassador, to give an address, and is seeking to extend an invitation to Lebanese ambassador Mirna Khawly.

In March 2022, the press club withdrew a speaking invitation to then-Russian ambassador Alexey Pavlovsky, citing “allegations of war crimes and bombing of civilian targets” in Ukraine, as well as “media censorship in Russia”.

Responding to questions from Deepcut, Reilly claimed the press club withdrew Pavlovsky’s invitation because the Russian embassy “wanted an altered format” for Pavlovsky’s address, and because “the board formed a late view that we would not learn much from this Ambassador that was not already known at the time”.

NPC denies ‘soft’ questioning of Israeli ambassador

Newman, who was appointed as Israel’s envoy to Canberra in February, used his press club address to claim – without evidence – that Australian protesters against Israel’s genocide in Gaza “celebrated the slaughter of Jews and Israelis”, and that pro-Palestinian “graffiti and vandalism... escalated to bullets on Bondi Beach”.

Newman also repeated Israeli government talking points that have been exhaustively debunked by human rights organisations, aid agencies, the UN and foreign media, such as that “the majority of all the so-called journalists” killed by Israel since October 2023 “were actually activists guised as journalists”. Many of Newman’s incendiary remarks were left unchallenged by mainstream Australian journalists in the audience.

Nevertheless, Reilly hit back at criticism that questions from mainstream journalists in the room were “soft”, citing a question from SBS reporter Anna Henderson about Israel’s killing of Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom,

“There were no ‘soft’ questions by journalists at this address in my opinion,” Reilly said in the email.

He also revealed to complainants that he personally decided not to advertise Newman’s address on the press club’s website or social media channels “to protect my staff from a predictable email and phone pile on from [the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network] and its network”.

APAN President Nasser Mashni called the press club’s invitation to Newman “disgraceful” last week, saying it “cannot claim to uphold journalistic integrity while platforming oppressors and silencing voices for the oppressed”.

APAN did not respond to Reilly’s comments.

Check out our new podcast, Deepthink. We speak with Senator David Shoebridge on the Iran war, the Australia-US alliance and the surging UK Greens. Listen on Spotify, Apple, Deezer or watch on YouTube.

Built by our community

We’ve made it here because of our community’s support. Thank you to all who have shared, liked, commented or sent a few dollars our way – it has all helped us get to this point.

We’re still two guys doing this part-time as living costs soar, but with your help, we’ll continue to nudge ahead.

If you can, please support our work by becoming a paid subscriber or donating.

Donate

Why we started Deepthink

The idea for Deepthink came soon after we launched Deepcut. I found my interviews for stories often stretching to 40 minutes and more – riveting conversations crammed into two or three quotes. Deepthink allows these conversations breathe.

What to expect

Smart minds on the major issues shaping Australia and the world. Critical thinking, not rage-bait. Walk away understanding more.

Where to listen

• Video: (right here on Substack or on YouTube)

• Audio: all platforms via Acast (Spotify, Apple, Deezer)

How often will you publish?

Every fortnight.

Paid subscriber perk.

Paid subscribers are invited to submit questions to our interview guests from which we will select one or two. If you would like to upgrade to a paid subscription, click the below button.

Subscribe now

Enjoy the first episode!

Welcome to our regular weekly wrap to ensure you’re properly informed of the news that matters (with some analysis).

Iran and Lebanon wars

By Antoun

• Is Trump preparing to lose the war in Iran? His comments this week that the US could end the war within two to three weeks without reopening the Strait of Hormuz signals nothing short of defeat. Iran is seeking to impose a new reality in the strait whereby it extracts transit fees from ships. An abrupt US retreat would effectively cede the strait to Iranian control, leaving Iran more empowered than where it was before the war. Other nations that Trump says should “fend for themselves” in securing oil and gas shipments through the strait are unlikely to go to war with Iran – the numerous diplomatic overtures to Tehran this month suggest deals are more likely instead.

• Spinning a ‘victory’ narrative to end the war. Trump will never frame this defeat as such, and will seek to manufacture a narrative that allows him to declare “mission accomplished”. We’re already seeing hints in the language used, with US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth declaring on Tuesday that “regime change has occurred” in Iran.

  • Fact check: Regime change has not occurred. The US and Israel killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as well as a slew of top officials, but that has only paved the way for a fresh crop of leaders. If anything, the Iranian regime appears even more firmly entrenched. But Trump needs to sell a win, and killing the ayatollah might be the spin that gets him out of a mess of his own making.

• Not a great week for Israel. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz repeated Israel’s intention to occupy south Lebanon, as Benjamin Netanyahu ordered an expansion of the invasion. But deeper Israeli incursions have been met with fierce resistance from Hezbollah fighters. Four Israeli soldiers were killed this week, bringing the Israeli death toll to 10 since their offensive into Lebanon began.

  • Guerrilla warfare: From what can be gathered, the invasion so far appears to be reminiscent of past Israeli attempts to control south Lebanon. A large army rolls in with traditional hardware only to be plucked off by mobile and hidden guerrilla fighters. This is essentially how the four soldiers were killed. As described by an Israeli outlet, the Israeli forces walked into a Hezbollah ambush. Even as Netanyahu promises to persist with the Lebanon invasion should the Iran war end, it is difficult to see how renewed occupation will differ from the past. The intensity of Hezbollah’s current attacks serves as a reminder to Israel that – as during the 1978-2000 Israeli occupation of south Lebanon – its forces will unlikely see peace while they remain on Lebanese soil.

  • Iranian missile superiority? Iranian missile barrages have decreased since the beginning of the war, but it continues to demonstrate the ability to hit key targets in Israel. This week they struck two: an oil refinery in Haifa and a chemical plant in Ramat Hovav, southern Israel.

  • Israeli support for war drops. A poll conducted a month into the war shows a 15-point drop in Israeli public support, compared to the first week of the war. Although still high at 78% support, it is the first indicator that Iranian attacks on Israel are having an impact on the public mood. Remember that the Israeli military imposes tight censorship on reports of damage, largely to keep its domestic population fed a narrative of strength and invincibility.

Support Deepcut

• Most American Jews oppose war: Sixty percent of American Jews oppose the war, according to a J Street poll. More importantly, 70% said they opposed unconditional US military and financial assistance to Israel.

• Fracture with Europe widens. A side-story to this war has been the unusual assertiveness demonstrated by Europe in its rejection of the US war. Just this week, Spain, Italy and France refused US use of their bases in the war, while Poland rejected a US request to relocate Patriot missiles to West Asia amid reports of diminishing air defence stocks. Trump hasn’t hid his contempt for Europe in his almost-daily attacks on NATO and/or specific European powers. Among his rants this week was a warning that the US may walk away from its commitment to defend NATO allies.

• UAE’s push for more war. The UAE, Israel’s closest ally in the region, has borne much of Iran’s fury since the initial Israeli/US attacks that sparked the war. Iran has fired more than 2,300 drones and missiles at the UAE, with US$120bn wiped from UAE markets. It perhaps explains why the UAE is pressing Trump to continue the war, with a UAE minister saying “coexistence with the Iranian regime” is impossible.

  • Quick take: The war has exposed the UAE as a mirage of opulence masking its fragile reality. Outside of its petro-wealth, the UAE has sought to position itself as a global logistics hub and tourist destination. Both of these sectors depends on open shipping lanes, airports and a reassurance of safety – all of which have been disrupted by Iran. Should Trump walk away with Iran in control of the Strait of Hormuz, the UAE will be left in a much weaker position than prior to the war.

• Iraqi threats of retaliation against Kuwait. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have also been pushing Trump to go harder on Iran. Kuwait has faced extensive Iranian attacks on US bases and energy infrastructure, including its largest oil refinery. In response to US threats of a ground invasion of Iran, Iraqi Shia militias have warned it will “respond in kind”, hinting at a possible invasion of Kuwait.

  • Quick take: Fear is likely driving Kuwait’s push for the US and Israel to weaken Iran. By virtue of its small size and location, Kuwait has been made particularly vulnerable by this war. It is heavily reliant on food imports through the Strait of Hormuz, and in the first weeks of the war saw a 30% increase in the price of meat and fish. Kuwait not only borders Iraq, it is also a short 23km from Iranian territory. An Iraqi ground incursion supported by Iranian forces is not beyond the realm of possibility. Such a scenario would likely trigger a Saudi response and a dramatic, bloody escalation in the conflict.

• Stats of note:

  • Thirteen US bases have been made “uninhabitable” by Iran’s retaliatory strikes (source: NYT)

  • The Israeli Air Force has carried out more than 800 strikes on Iran, dropping 16,000 bombs (source: Israeli Air Force)

  • More than 90,000 residential units in Iran have been hit by US/Israeli airstrikes, as well as 307 health facilities and 760 schools (source: Iranian Red Crescent)

  • Four million people in the Arab world could be forced into poverty due to the economic losses sustained from the war, which could amount to US$200bn of economic growth (source: UN)

Democracy in Australia

By Alex

• Queensland police target artists. Queensland police are investigating several Brisbane-based artists under new laws banning the display or publication of the phrase ‘from the river to the sea’. Artist James Hillier was contacted by police on Sunday regarding an artwork he published on social media depicting 18-year-old activist Bonnie Carter, who was herself arrested in March for wearing a shirt with the banned phrase. Artist Emilia Cilento was also forced to remove online artwork using the phrase after being contacted by police.
  
  Meanwhile, a Brisbane mural by Sydney-based street artist Scott Marsh depicting singer John Farnham was vandalised this week, with lyrics from Farnham’s song ‘Two Strong Hearts’ that closely mimic the banned phrase painted over. “When artists are being threatened with years in jail time for painting pictures you know we are headed down a very dark road,” Marsh said on social media.

• Opposition to imposed ‘antisemitism’ training. Academics at the University of Sydney have accused management of censoring staff who express concern about compulsory new ‘antisemitism’ training. Posts along those lines by senior lecturers Nick Riemer and David Brophy in the university’s internal staff messaging platform, Viva Engage, were removed within minutes by an anonymous moderator, with both academics receiving warnings that they may be in breach of the platform’s terms of use. The university has brought in the mandatory training in line with recommendations handed down by the antisemitism special envoy, Jillian Segal. On Tuesday, Riemer also expressed concern that Dr. Michael Abrahams-Sprod, a coordinator for pro-Israel group the Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism, has been appointed as special advisor to vice-chancellor Mark Scott.

  • Quick take: Universities have become one of the most contested battlegrounds in the fight between free speech advocates and the pro-Israel lobby, and nowhere has the fight been more protracted than at the University of Sydney. Riemer is one of two USyd academics defending a class action lawsuit in the Federal Court alleging racial discrimination over his criticisms of Zionism and Israel – a suit that more than 50 Jewish staff and students have condemned as “part of concerted and coordinated efforts to silence critics of Israel across Australia’s university campuses”.

• Hearing date set for NSW officer accused of assaulting former Greens candidate. Senior Constable Christopher Davis, the officer accused of assaulting Hannah Thomas, will not face a hearing until 2027. Davis pleaded not guilty to two charges stemming from the arrest of Thomas and four others at an anti-genocide protest in Belmore last June. Thomas was hospitalised following her arrest and has since had three rounds of surgery on her right eye. “So many officers within NSW Police have engaged in sickening brutality,” Thomas wrote on social media on Tuesday. “Yet they’re still on the streets, policing protests with an ever-expanding arsenal of weapons and the green light from the Minns Government to keep up the good work.”

• New legal nonprofit to defend civil liberties. The Civil Liberties Defence Centre pledges to support people facing lawfare attacks for their “support of human rights in the Middle East”. The centre vows to “provide legal advice, assistance and representation to disadvantaged people facing legal issues due to the exercise of their civil rights in Australia” and advocate for greater legal protections for freedom of speech and civil liberties. The CLDC’s inaugural fundraising dinner is scheduled for May.

Got a tip? Drop an email to tips@deepcutnews.com or send an anonymous Signal to @deepcut.25.

The National Press Club is fielding heavy criticism for extending a speaking invitation to the Israeli ambassador.

Hillel Newman, Israel’s new envoy to Canberra, addressed the press club on Tuesday, with the speech broadcast on ABC News 24. Unusually, however, Newman’s invitation was not advertised on the press club’s website or social media platforms.

Newman used his press club platform to claim, without evidence, that protesters against Israel’s genocide in Gaza “celebrated the slaughter of Jews and Israelis”, and that pro-Palestinian “graffiti and vandalism... escalated to bullets on Bondi Beach”.

Newman made headlines earlier this month after claiming that the UN is a “politicised body” that has “nothing to do with justice”, and for suggesting that the US-Israeli bombing of a girls’ school in Iran that killed at least 175 people – including more than 100 children – actually targeted a military facility.

“We do not have information yet that this actually was a school and there were children there,” Newman said. “Don’t believe what you hear coming out of Iran.”

Some media outlets ask softball questions of genocidal governments. We don’t. Support Deepcut for $3.20 a day.

Support Deepcut

Newman’s invitation to one of Australia’s most prestigious forums has infuriated anti-genocide advocates.

“It is disgraceful that the National Press Club has chosen to platform a representative and an apologist for the genocidal state of Israel, particularly as it expands its war crimes from Gaza to Lebanon and neighbouring countries,” Nasser Mashni, president of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN), said.

Writing on social media, Greens Senator David Shoebridge said “many who’ve long argued Australian media is biased will see [Newman’s invitation] as proof”.

“The Press Club cancelled Pulitzer winner Chris Hedges after he submitted a speech on the killing of Palestinian journalists, then booked Israel’s ambassador instead. If you wonder why media reporting on Gaza genocide has been so disappointing this is what they think is normal,” Shoebridge said.

Israel’s record of killing journalists

According to figures collated by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Israel has killed at least 259 journalists and media workers since October 2023 – a campaign the CPJ calls “the deadliest and most deliberate effort to kill and silence journalists that CPJ has ever documented”.

The Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate estimates that Israel killed at least 475 family members of Palestinian journalists in the two years to October 2025, as well as destroying 150 media offices and 140 journalists’ homes.

Last Saturday, the Israeli military killed three Lebanese journalists in an airstrike in southern Lebanon. The Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) official X account then falsely claimed that one of the journalists, Ali Shoeib, “operated as a Hezbollah Radwan Force terrorist under the guise of a journalist”. An IDF spokesperson later admitted on Fox News that an accompanying photo of Shoeib supposedly in a Hezbollah military uniform was doctored.

Free press or a free ride?

Based in Canberra, the press club bills itself as “Australia’s most recognised forum for discussion and debate”. Besides the hundreds of journalists, editors, politicians, bureaucrats and diplomats who hold membership, the press club also has more than 80 corporate and government sponsors, including arms manufacturers BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, SAAB Technologies and Thales, as well as mining and energy giants BHP and Woodside Energy.

Despite its self-described status as “a vigorous champion of media freedom”, the press club has said little about Israel’s killing of journalists – or any other matter of press freedom. Its ‘Freedom of the Press’ webpage lists only four public statements, one of which links to an International Association of Press Clubs press release from September 2025 condemning “the killing of journalists in Gaza” while making no mention of Israel.

Two refer to instances where the press club withdrew invitations to scheduled speakers. In March 2022, the press club withdrew a speaking invitation to then-Russian ambassador Alexey Pavlovsky, citing “allegations of war crimes and bombing of civilian targets” in Ukraine, as well as “media censorship in Russia”.

In October 2025, the press club abruptly cancelled a planned address by former New York Times Middle East bureau chief Chris Hedges, who was due to speak on Israel’s killing of journalists in Gaza. Hedges called the decision “a terrible betrayal of our colleagues in Gaza who have been killed for chronicling the daily savagery in Gaza; for doing their job”.

“No doubt the club is able to slither away from its journalistic integrity. No doubt it is spared the attacks that would come from allowing me to speak. But please, have the decency to remove the word ‘press’ from your club,” Hedges wrote at the time.

The National Press Club and journalist union the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance did not respond to questions.

Know more about this story? Drop an email to tips@deepcutnews.com or send an anonymous Signal to @deepcut.25.

By Sara Haddad

I was raised in a tiny Lebanese ‘village’ in Castle Hill, a suburb that was once semi-rural but is now a sprawling mini-metropolis in the middle of Sydney’s Bible belt.

That’s the best way I can describe my upbringing – one of many children in a multi-family, multi-generational home, reared on the abundant fruits of the land that captured my family’s hearts because it reminded them of their mountain village in Lebanon. To the land they brought sustainable practices acquired over many generations. In the house they continued the traditions of an ancient culture and fostered an environment that encouraged equity and communal support. We even had our own chapel.

In 1967 – the year of my birth and the year of Al Naksa, ‘the setback’, with the Six-Day War – members of my extended clan began their considerable involvement in the issue of Palestine. For as long as I can remember, Palestine was always there: in discussions over coffee, in keffiyehs worn to keep out the cold, in exasperated insults fired at the TV as news reports relayed the latest of Israel’s innumerable atrocities in the region.

My family are Maronite Christians who hail, like most Lebanese Australians, from north Lebanon. My grandparents, born at the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th, were deeply devout.

In church my grandfather read Aramaic, widely considered by scholars to be the language spoken by Jesus. Some of their children, however, were politically motivated and intellectually curious. Two of my uncles, for example, were young enough to receive an education when they arrived in Australia in 1949, and later held academic positions at the University of Sydney.

Throughout the seventies and eighties, I remember many visiting intellectuals, many people from many countries and other faiths moving in and out of our house. And the question of Palestine was the single biggest political issue in that world.

So, when I began writing my novella, The Sunbird, in December 2023, almost two months into Israel’s genocide of Gaza, I did so as someone who had inherited a cause. As a child I wasn’t interested in the issue, but that didn’t mean I didn’t absorb everything that was going on around me. I learnt a valuable truth and I learnt it young: that what had been done to the Palestinian people was undeniably and terribly wrong. From there, I set my own path.

It is important to note that my Maronite Lebanese family were in many ways atypical, not least in their support of Palestine. The reasons for this are many and varied and easily warrant an essay on their own, but geographical distance between us and the wider diaspora certainly played its part. As did the political influence of at least a couple of important characters, in both the old country and the new.

It was almost unheard of for Lebanese Christians of my father’s generation to advocate for Palestinian liberation. In Lebanon itself, sectarianism determines allegiances and, to a substantial extent, these loyalties are reflected in the views and the activities of the diaspora.

It is much less rare, though still not common, for Lebanese Christians of my generation to support Palestine. Regardless of the generation, involvement seems to be far less determined by ethnicity than by leftist politics and a fierce commitment to social justice.

Subscribe now

Before 16 May 1916, when the British and French divided the Arab territories of the Ottoman empire into distinct geographical areas under their control, Lebanese and Palestinians – and Syrians and Jordanians – shared one area of land known as Bilad-al-Sham, ‘the land to the north’. At roughly 800km long and 150km wide, this region equates to roughly half of Victoria. It’s not large.

Like all complex societies, the people who still share this land, despite those map lines, have many things in common – language, cuisine, social customs, to name a few – but they also differ in ways that manifest from village to village. Before colonisation restricted movement and separated people from their neighbours, the people of this land occupied one world – an intricate and diverse world woven over millennia of continued civilisation.

The quest for Greater Israel, an ambition long held, is now in overdrive. Twenty-nine months into its genocide of Gaza, Israel directly occupies 58% of the Strip. Ancient cities like Rafah are no more, reduced to rubble under which are buried the bodies of the slain, a blood-soaked wasteland earmarked for real estate development.

In the West Bank, ethnic cleansing continues unabated, and settler violence, encouraged by the government and the military, is at an all-time high. In East Jerusalem, the occupation has closed both the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to worshippers. And in Lebanon, following Israel’s invasion of the south of the country, more than 1,000 people have been killed, countless villages have been destroyed, and one million people have been forcibly displaced.

Now Lebanon, like Palestine, is in a literal fight for survival. It is not hyperbolic to say that we are on the precipice of a cataclysmic shift. The land – all of it – is under immediate and serious threat. If ever there was a time to reclaim our past, to embrace the world that existed before colonisation succeeded in dividing us, it is now. If ever there was a time to put our differences aside and come together as one people, it is now.

Sara Haddad is a writer and editor who lives and works on Gadigal land. She is the author of the adult novella, The Sunbird, and the companion volume of the same name for children, which was recently released by University of Queensland Press. Both books can be purchased at all good bookshops, online and via the publisher’s website: https://www.uqp.com.au/books/the-sunbird

Got a tip? Drop an email to tips@deepcutnews.com or send an anonymous Signal to @deepcut.25.