john kilcullen

A fact check on Minns. Vote him out. theconversation.com/do-australians…

There was a time when accusations of antisemitism carried enormous moral weight across the world. That weight existed for good reason. Antisemitism has a long and horrifying history, from centuries of persecution and exclusion to pogroms, ghettos, and ultimately the Holocaust. The term described a genuine and deadly form of racism that deserved to be confronted seriously and consistently wherever it appeared. Likewise, the phrase “blood libel” referred to one of the ugliest myths in European history, the false accusation that Jewish people murdered Christian children for ritual purposes. It was a lie used to justify violence, discrimination and mass persecution against innocent people for centuries. But in recent years, particularly in relation to criticism of Israel and its treatment of Palestinians, both terms have increasingly been used far beyond their historical meaning. Politicians, lobby groups, media commentators, Israeli officials, and bored lonely racist trolls now frequently label criticism of Israeli government policy as “antisemitic”, while descriptions of Israeli military conduct or allegations of war crimes are dismissed as “blood libel”. This strategy is intellectually dishonest, and the repeated overuse of these accusations is eroding their power altogether, and we’re really getting sick of it. When almost every criticism of Israel is branded antisemitic — whether it concerns settlement expansion, the blockade of Gaza, civilian deaths, forced displacement, apartheid allegations, or breaches of international law — many ordinary people begin to see the accusation not as a serious warning about racism, but as a political shield designed to silence criticism. That perception is damaging on several levels. Firstly, it weakens the fight against real antisemitism. Actual antisemitism still exists. Synagogues are attacked. Jewish people are abused online and in public. Neo-Nazi movements still operate openly in many countries. Conspiracy theories about Jewish control and influence continue to circulate widely. These are genuine forms of racism that require vigilance and public condemnation. But when the same label is applied indiscriminately to human rights organisations, United Nations officials, journalists, academics, student protesters, Holocaust scholars, former Israeli politicians, Jewish critics of Israel, and ordinary citizens calling for Palestinian rights, people inevitably become sceptical. The accusation begins to look less like a principled stand against racism and more like a rhetorical weapon. Once that happens, the danger is obvious. If people start tuning out accusations of antisemitism because they believe the term is being manipulated for political purposes, then genuine cases may no longer receive the seriousness they deserve. Secondly, the strategy damages Israel’s international credibility. For decades, Israel’s defenders benefited from substantial goodwill in many Western countries. The historical trauma of the Holocaust understandably shaped public sympathy and political support. But public opinion is changing rapidly, especially among younger generations who have grown up with instant access to footage, testimony, independent journalism and social media coverage from Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories. When people watch apartment blocks collapse, hospitals destroyed, refugee camps bombed, aid blocked, journalists killed and entire families wiped out, and then hear every expression of concern dismissed as “antisemitism” or “blood libel”, many conclude that Israeli officials are attempting to shut down moral scrutiny rather than answer legitimate criticism. And that’s exactly what they’re attempting to do. And that reaction is intensified when the accusations are directed at respected international institutions and organisations. The United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Médecins Sans Frontières, genocide scholars, former diplomats, and even former Israeli military personnel have all raised serious concerns about Israeli policy at different times. Branding all such criticism as antisemitic stretches credibility to breaking point. The term “blood libel” in particular has increasingly become counterproductive in modern political discourse. Historically, it referred to fabricated accusations against Jews involving ritual murder. Today, however, it is often invoked whenever reports emerge about civilian casualties, starvation, attacks on infrastructure, or allegations of human rights abuses in Gaza. Yet many of these reports are not medieval fantasies or racist conspiracy theories. They are coming from international aid agencies, eyewitness accounts, satellite imagery, investigative journalists and humanitarian organisations operating on the ground. People can debate interpretations, casualty figures, military intent and legal definitions. That is normal in any conflict. But reflexively labelling all allegations as “blood libel” risks trivialising the original historical meaning of the phrase while simultaneously making Israel appear unwilling to tolerate scrutiny. There is also a broader communications failure embedded in this approach. Modern propaganda works differently than it did decades ago. Governments no longer control information flows in the same way. Millions of people now watch events unfold in real time through videos, independent reporters and social media platforms. Attempts to aggressively suppress criticism often backfire because they create the impression that uncomfortable truths are being hidden rather than answered. The more frequently accusations of antisemitism are deployed against critics of Israel, the more some observers begin separating Jewish identity from the actions of the Israeli state entirely. Ironically, the over-politicisation of antisemitism accusations may actually accelerate the decline of Israel’s moral authority internationally because it reinforces the perception that the state relies on historical trauma as a protective barrier against accountability. That is not sustainable. No country should be immune from criticism. Russia is criticised for Ukraine. China is criticised for Xinjiang. Saudi Arabia is criticised for Yemen. The United States is criticised for Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel cannot expect to conduct military operations, maintain an occupation, expand settlements, or impose blockades while insisting that criticism itself constitutes racism. The world absolutely should oppose antisemitism wherever it exists. Jewish people should never be held collectively responsible for the actions of any government, or the 85% - 90% of Jewish Israelis who support the country's ongoing military campaigns or the 65% of the total global Jewish population who support Israel's military actions. But those numbers are quite telling, and may go some way to explaining the problem. Precisely because antisemitism is real, the term must be protected from political overuse. If every critic becomes an antisemite, eventually the accusation loses meaning. And if every allegation of wrongdoing becomes “blood libel”, eventually people stop listening altogether. In the long run, that may prove disastrous not only for public understanding of antisemitism itself, but also for Israel’s standing in the eyes of the world, which has already hit rock bottom.

I spent the first 10 months of the Gaza war at the White House working on the response, then joined the 2024 campaign leading Jewish outreach. I spent nearly every day on the campaign talking to voters about Gaza. I don't have any data, but based on my experience a few thoughts on the autopsy and the role Gaza played in the election: 1. Anyone saying Gaza had NOTHING to do with the outcome is wrong. It clearly hurt enthusiasm and support among parts of the Democratic base. 2. Anyone saying it was THE reason is also wrong. The economy, the shortened campaign, and the inability to compete in many of the low-propensity voter spaces Trump dominated were all critical factors. 3. Most importantly: this was never fundamentally a MESSAGING problem. It was a POLICY problem. There was too much trauma, anger, and grief across different communities for there to be some magic set of words Harris could have used to make it go away. The only thing that might have changed the politics was actually ending the war through a ceasefire. I’ve said elsewhere what I think the administration could have done differently -- taking a harder line with Netanyahu earlier, applying more pressure, and publicly offering Israelis a credible alternative vision while Biden still had significant popularity and leverage in Israel. But that all would have had to happen in late 2023 or early 2024, before Biden became a lame duck. By the summer, it was largely too late. And to be honest, I’m not sure it would have worked. But I do wish we had tried. 4. One thing I do regret from the campaign: not having a Palestinian speaker on stage at the DNC. I wasn’t part of that decision. It was my first week on the campaign. I don’t think it would have changed the election outcome. But I do think it would have been the right thing to do.

#aukus #auspol A United States naval university has questioned Australia’s ability to operate nuclear-powered submarines, warning it risks being left with ‘a potent but politically constrained’ fleet under the AUKUS deal. thenightly.com.au/australia/us-n…

A 15-point plan to implement a 21-point plan. It might have been comic were it not an admission of abject failure, for which millions of besieged Palestinians continue to pay a devastating price. Permit me to offer a simpler three-point plan instead, one rooted in international law rather than its abrogation. 1. Israel must withdraw, immediately and unconditionally, from the territory of the occupied State of Palestine: Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. 2. Israel must make full reparation for the damage caused to all natural and legal persons concerned in the occupied Palestinian territory. 3. All States must cooperate to bring Israel’s unlawful presence in occupied Palestine to an end as rapidly as possible. That would constitute a credible framework for justice and peace. Not this farce packaged as a “Board of Peace”. The privatisation of the Security Council’s collective responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security has failed spectacularly. Gaza stands once again on the precipice of renewed hostilities and an even more devastating humanitarian calamity. Responsibility must now be reassumed by States acting collectively through the institutions of international law, and governed by the norms articulated by the International Court of Justice, not by improvised political mechanisms masquerading as peace-making.

Yes but if one the Australian cabinet ministers were to behave like this internationally then the Australian PM & government would rightly be held responsible. Ambassadors would be called in or sent home. Why is such impunity accorded by Europe & Australia? Contrast with Russia.

@MattDoran91 @jommy_tee Your reporting has been sterling Matt in a very conflicted and contested environment. Good job.

Israel allowed Ben-Gvir to act in the way he does, until it became politically inconvenient - particularly in how it portrays itself around the world. His behaviour against the Global Sumud Flotilla activists is unsurprising, given his back catalogue. abc.net.au/news/2026-05-2…

Israel has been working to oust Palestinians from the South Hebron Hills for many years. Efforts intensified after October 2023, and since then, hundreds of organized attacks against local Palestinian residents and shepherds have been recorded. In January 2026 alone, more than 200 attacks by Israeli settlers against Palestinians were documented in villages in the area. Over the course of this time, settlers invaded Palestinian-owned farmland and killed two local residents. Settler militias operate as an informal arm of the state: armed with military-issued weapons and riding ATVs and horses, they invade communities under the protection of military forces, who either turn a blind eye to the violence or take an active part in it. The violence in the South Hebron Hills is part of the policy of ethnic cleansing that Israel is implementing throughout the West Bank. To the full report >> btselem.org/video/20260518…

@Lochinvar001 @Ostrov_A @AIJAC_Update @smh the Jerusalem Declaration is a much better definition: jerusalemdeclaration.org

@Ostrov_A @AIJAC_Update @smh AIJAC demanding the ABC and SBS adopt a politicised definition written to shield Israel from scrutiny is not “social cohesion.” It is ideological intimidation dressed up as moral concern. The IHRA definition has become a cudgel used to smear journalists, academics and citizens.

My @AIJAC_Update colleague Jamie Hyams, with letter to the editor at @smh, on the deeply disappointing refusal by ABC and SBS to adopt the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar is desperately trying to repair the severe damage done to Israel's international image by claiming that National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir is not the face of Israel, following the release of a video showing Ben-Gvir abusing detained flotilla activists. "You knowingly caused harm to our State in this disgraceful display - and not for the first time. You have undone tremendous, professional, and successful efforts made by so many people - from IDF soldiers to Foreign Ministry staff and many others. No, you are not the face of Israel."

1,308 days since Dan was arrested in a supermarket in Orange and taken away from his wife and six kids. ​ For two months Dan and his family had no idea why he was arrested. He spent 19 months in solitary confinement. He has received no legal aid and remains in maximum security. ​ Dan faces zero charges in Australia. The US allegations against Dan were not even considered a crime in Australia. ​ Dan has done his time, now it's time for him to come home. ​ The Australian government could free Dan at any time, but instead his family has to keep fighting in court for his release. ​ Please help the Duggans fund their Federal Court appeal​: ​chuffed.org/project/109154…

The shocking footage of Israeli Minister Ben Gvir abusing detainees is the latest contemptible act from a regime that continues to breach international law. This is the result of a state being allowed to act with complete impunity.

What an insane thing to tweet. Ben Gvir is literally Israel’s National Security minister! He is in charge of Israeli prisons and Israeli police! And everyone knows that the treatment of Palestinians off camera is infinitely worse than the treatment of Westerners on camera

Trump: "I'm right now at 99% in Israel. I could run for prime minister, so maybe after I do this, I'll go to Israel and run for prime minister."

I have also directed DFAT to call in Israel’s Ambassador to Australia to reinforce this message.