标签： Oceania

As Australia’s Royal Commission into Anti-Semitism and Social Cohesion enters its fourth day of public hearings, multiple witnesses have laid bare profound harm and broken trust stemming from rising anti-Jewish sentiment across Australian public institutions, media, and community spaces. The testimonies have cast a stark light on the deep-seated biases and systemic failures that have eroded safety for Jewish communities across the country. One dual Australian-Israeli citizen, identified only as AAV to protect her privacy, told the commission of crippling fear that preceded a scheduled knee surgery at a New South Wales (NSW) public hospital in February 2025. Four days before her procedure, she encountered a viral social media video — currently the subject of active criminal proceedings — in which nurses at Bankstown Hospital allegedly boasted about harming Israeli citizens. The revelation shattered her long-held trust in the state public health system, leaving her terrified that she could be killed while unconscious on the operating table. “I can’t even describe the terror that that created for me because of my knowledge of healthcare,” AAV told the hearing. “I spent the worst 24 hours of my life imagining all the ways I could be killed. I was paralysed with fear.” The witness shared that she already carried profound trauma from the October 7 2024 attacks on Israel: her cousin was taken hostage in that assault, and their remains were only returned to family this past January. Even before the pre-surgery panic, AAV’s faith in Australian institutions had already been shaken by a deeply upsetting experience with an NSW Health employee assistance program (EAP) counsellor following the December 2024 Bondi Junction attack. She had sought counselling to process overwhelming grief and anger over what she viewed as the government’s failure to protect Jewish and all Australian citizens, but the session left her reeling. Instead of providing support, the counsellor asked AAV to “put yourself in the position of those men and understand why they might have acted that way,” before prompting her to imagine a conversation with a Gazan mother who had lost family in the conflict. AAV said she stormed out of the session in a burst of rage, stunned by the questions. Reflecting on the broader shift in safety for Jewish Australians, she added: “What we have done in the Jewish community is made abnormal normal. It’s not normal for a person to go to the hospital and think ‘Is somebody gonna harm me while I’m here’?” She stressed that extensive, intentional work is required from NSW Health to begin repairing the damage done to trust within the Jewish community. Two people, Sarah Abu Lebdeh and Ahmad Rashad Nadir, have already pleaded not guilty to charges related to the social media video: Lebdeh faces counts of using a carriage service to menace, harass, offend and threaten group violence, while Nadir has pleaded not guilty to charges of menace, harassment, and offense. The pair is scheduled to go on trial in August 2025. Beyond healthcare, the hearings also brought sharp criticism of Australian media from veteran former Age editor-in-chief Michael Gawenda, who called the sector’s response to rising anti-Semitism “an enormous failure.” Gawenda argued that major media outlets have systematically downplayed the growing crisis of anti-Jewish bias in Australia, echoing long-running complaints from Jewish community groups that the scope of the problem has been underreported. He told the commission he was stunned by the breadth of harm shared by the more than 30 witnesses who have already testified, most of whose stories have never been reported in mainstream media. “Why was there a need to have a royal commission to tell these stories?” Gawenda asked. “It cannot be that they didn’t have the journalists to do it. Why didn’t they spend time in these communities, talk to ordinary people about what they’re experiencing?” Gawenda also condemned a growing trend of journalists abandoning long-held ethical norms to act as political activists, specifically calling out reporters who have publicly stated it is acceptable to side exclusively with one side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “This was a denial of the ethical positions that have existed in journalism from the time I became a journalist in 1970: that we don’t be activists, that we don’t even belong to the Labor or the Liberal party,” he said. Another witness, Stephanie Cunio, a lifelong Jewish left activist and Bondi local who has worked with union and advocacy groups for decades, shared her experience of being marginalized by progressive communities for rejecting one-sided takes on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Cunio told the hearing she holds the nuanced view that both the October 7 Hamas attacks and the ongoing violence in Gaza are unacceptable atrocities, but that most of her left-leaning peers refuse to accept that both realities can coexist. “The left could only see one truth, which was the horrible things happening in Gaza,” she said. “So that truth was heartbreaking, and then further on the fact that broadly the left could not stand in solidarity with Jews as we are increasingly experiencing anti-Semitism. I don’t know if it’s naivety, but I don’t find it forgivable.” Cunio, who first joined the Jewish left in the 1990s, said she was “cancelled and gaslit” by a climate organization where she served on the board, after she refused to fully denounce Israel’s right to exist and adopt a framing that labeled the state entirely colonial. “There was a strong pressure to denounce completely the existence of Israel and to take the colonial view of the conflict, which I don’t completely disagree with,” she explained. “But Israel is my ancestral lands as well. If I wasn’t taking that position I was cancelled and gaslit.” She added that she feels humiliated by the widespread demonization of the word “Israel” in progressive spaces, noting that for her, the word evokes beautiful landscapes and beloved friends, not just the actions of the current Israeli government — while acknowledging that for Palestinians, the term is inextricably tied to war, displacement, and violence. After the December 14 2024 Bondi attack that killed 15 people, Cunio received an outpouring of support from community members, but she called the experience bittersweet. “It was a double edged sword: it was welcome, but where was it before, and where was it for those people who died on October 7th?” she asked. The commission also heard from the owners of Lewis Continental Kitchen, a beloved kosher deli in Bondi that was firebombed in October 2024. Mother-daughter co-owners Judith and Karyn Lewis described the arson attack as devastating to their family business, which had become a central community hub where customers became close friends. “For us it’s devastating because we’re not seeing all our friends because our customers very much became our friends,” Judith Lewis told the commission. The public hearing was briefly closed to allow the pair to speak freely about the attack, as three men facing charges over the arson are still before the courts. The Royal Commission into Anti-Semitism and Social Cohesion was called by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on January 8 2025, following weeks of community pressure in the wake of the alleged December 2024 Bondi terror attack. This first block of hearings is scheduled to run for two weeks, focused on establishing a clear definition of anti-Semitism, mapping its prevalence across Australian society, and assessing how bias has taken root in major public and private institutions. The commission’s final report, including policy recommendations to address rising anti-Semitism, is due to be delivered to the government in December 2025, one year after the Bondi attack.

On Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump laid out a dual track of cautious optimism and stark warning for ongoing negotiations with Iran, saying a breakthrough agreement is “very possible” even as he threatened to resume devastating military strikes at far greater intensity if talks collapse.

The latest diplomatic push comes after weeks of stalled dialogue between the two long-time adversaries, following an inconclusive first round of talks mediated by Pakistan last month. Negotiations gained a faint pulse last week when Trump paused a short-lived U.S. military operation designed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz — the world’s most critical oil chokepoint — citing emerging prospects for a negotiated settlement. Progress remains gridlocked, however: Iran has not yet formally responded to a new U.S. proposal put forward in recent days.

“ We’ve had very good talks over the last 24 hours, and it’s very possible that we’ll make a deal,” Trump told reporters Wednesday. “If Iran agrees to give what has been agreed to, the war will be over. If not, the bombing will resume at a much higher level and intensity.” Trump also reiterated his demand that Iran hand over all its stockpiles of enriched uranium to the U.S., a major sticking point in negotiations that he offered no clear path to resolving.

Iranian officials have pushed back against the U.S. framework, with top negotiator and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf accusing Washington of seeking to force Iran into unconditional surrender through a combination of economic pressure, naval blockades and targeted media manipulation. “Washington is seeking, through a naval blockade, economic pressure and media manipulation, to destroy the country’s cohesion in order to force us to surrender,” Ghalibaf warned. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei confirmed Wednesday that the U.S. proposal remains under internal review, with Tehran set to share its formal position with mediator Pakistan once internal deliberations are complete.

The military standoff around the Strait of Hormuz has remained tense despite the diplomatic pause. The U.S. military confirmed Wednesday that one of its warplanes targeted and disabled the rudder of an oil tanker that attempted to break the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports. Trump has maintained the full U.S. blockade will remain in place as long as Iran continues its own restrictions on shipping through the strait.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, a key broker in the initial talks hosted in Islamabad last month, has voiced public optimism for a lasting outcome. “We are very hopeful that the current momentum will lead to a lasting agreement that secures durable peace and stability for the region and beyond,” Sharif said in a post on X.

U.S. news outlet Axios, citing two anonymous senior U.S. officials, reported Wednesday that both sides are nearing agreement on a one-page memorandum of understanding that would end active hostilities and establish a framework for future detailed negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

On the diplomatic front, Iran’s top foreign diplomat Abbas Araghchi met with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi in Beijing Wednesday to discuss the ongoing negotiations. Araghchi said after the meeting that Iran looks forward to Chinese support for building a new post-war regional framework that balances security and sustainable development for all nations in the Middle East.

Trump’s conciliatory rhetoric came hours after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the U.S. had concluded all active offensive operations against Iran. Global financial markets reacted positively to the signs of de-escalation, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq both closing at all-time record highs on Wednesday as investors grew more optimistic about a breakthrough that would ease regional energy market risks.

Not all reaction to the talks has been positive, however. Speaking to AFP from Tehran, 43-year-old translator Azadeh expressed deep fear about the prospect of a deal between the Trump administration and Iran’s current government, saying years of economic hardship and conflict have brought no tangible benefits to ordinary Iranian citizens. “We’ve gone through so much hardship and suffering, and no achievements for people? I honestly just hope they finish this regime,” she said.

Tensions across the broader region escalated Wednesday on the Lebanese front of the ongoing conflict. Israel carried out an airstrike on Beirut’s southern suburbs, the first attack on the densely populated area in nearly a month. A source close to the Iran-backed Hezbollah group told AFP the strike killed a senior commander from the group’s elite fighting unit. Lebanon’s health ministry confirmed that at least 11 additional people were killed in a series of separate Israeli strikes across southern and eastern Lebanon Wednesday. Israel’s Army Chief Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir visited Israeli troops deployed along the southern Lebanon border Wednesday, vowing to “seize every opportunity to deepen the dismantling of Hezbollah.”

U.S. Secretary Rubio also announced that Washington and its Gulf Arab allies have drafted a new United Nations Security Council resolution demanding that Tehran halt all attacks on commercial shipping, disclose the location of naval mines in regional waterways and end efforts to collect tolls from ships passing through the strait. A vote on the resolution is expected in the coming days, though its adoption remains uncertain amid expected divisions among Security Council member states.

In a surprising revelation that has electrified Australian political discourse, a senior treasury official confirmed during a February Senate hearing that Australia generates more annual government revenue from beer excise taxes than it does from levies on its multibillion-dollar offshore gas exports. The exchange, captured on video and shared widely across social media, has amassed nearly 10 million views on Instagram alone, catapulting a long-simmering debate over resource taxation into the national spotlight.

Independent Senator David Pocock, who pressed the official for clarity, summed up widespread public frustration in his question: “How do we live in a country, one of the biggest gas exporters in the world, and we’re getting more tax from beer?” The viral moment has reignited a grassroots campaign led by Pocock, political commentator Konrad Benjamin, and other advocates to implement a 25% tax on Australian gas exports, a policy that has drawn fierce pushback from multinational energy companies operating in the country.

As Australia grapples with skyrocketing cost-of-living pressures and soaring domestic gas prices, exacerbated by the global fuel crisis triggered by the ongoing US-Israeli conflict with Iran, the debate has dominated front pages just one week ahead of the release of the country’s annual federal budget. Despite broad public support for the policy, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has already ruled out its inclusion in next week’s budget, but the issue shows no signs of fading from the political agenda.

Former Australian Treasury Secretary Dr Ken Ken Henry, who first proposed a broad mining tax 16 years ago that was ultimately defeated after a massive industry lobbying campaign, has thrown his weight behind the current push. He argued that if the earlier mining tax had been implemented, Australia would have collected tens of billions of dollars in extra revenue that could have been seeded into a intergenerational sovereign wealth fund to fund long-term public services. Henry drew a blunt analogy to explain the current unfairness of Australia’s gas taxation regime: “Imagine if I were to come to you … and put this proposition to you: I’ll sell your house and I’ll give you 30% and I’ll keep the other 70%, and you should be happy with that because I’ve just converted an asset into cash. None of you would be stupid enough to do that.”

The Australia Institute, a progressive public policy think tank, has further underscored the scope of the revenue gap, noting that Japan generates more tax revenue from importing Australian gas than Australia collects from exporting the resource. The institute estimates that a 25% gas export tax would add around A$17 billion (£9 billion, US$12 billion) to annual government revenue.

Polling data released last week confirms the policy’s broad popularity with Australian voters, with 57% of respondents backing the proposed gas export tax and just 12% voicing opposition. Many supporters have pointed to Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund, built from the country’s oil and gas revenues, as a model for Australia. For comparison, Australia’s existing sovereign wealth fund held just A$267 billion as of December 2025 – less than 10% of Norway’s total, despite Australia having a population five times the size of Norway’s. Supporters argue that increased gas tax revenue could fund popular public programs including more generous parental leave, free tertiary education, and expanded healthcare.

Benjamin, a former high school teacher turned political YouTuber who testified on the proposal at the recent Senate hearing, has built a large social media following for his videos calling for reform, regularly earning hundreds of thousands of views. “My year 10 business students understand: if something is profitable and we’re holding all the levers of power – look around. How many stable democracies have the many resources that we have? How are we getting such a dud deal?” he told senators.

The scale of the current revenue gap is hard to overstate. While Australian gas exports hit a record peak of A$90 billion in 2023 amid market turmoil following the Ukraine war, the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT), the primary levy on offshore oil and gas producers, is projected to raise just A$1.5 billion in the 2025-26 financial year. By contrast, beer excise taxes are expected to generate A$2.7 billion in the same period. Even at the country’s flagship Gorgon gas project, majority-owned by Chevron, multinational Shell paid just A$109 million in PRRT last year – its first PRRT payment in a decade – on A$2.5 billion in project revenue.

Samantha Hepburn, a natural resource law professor at Deakin University, explained that Australia’s tax code includes unusually generous provisions for energy companies that allow them to deduct large upfront infrastructure and development costs from their tax bills, and carry forward unused tax credits to offset future profits for years. “Gas is in a particularly favourable position because of the significant upfront costs associated with construction and drilling and the other infrastructure,” Hepburn said. “And that means that they can keep uplifting those expenses against future profits in a way that other resource or mining resource sector companies haven’t necessarily been able to do.” While gas companies pay standard corporate and payroll taxes like other businesses, Hepburn noted that they exploit a publicly owned natural resource, and existing royalty payments for onshore projects are far smaller than profit-based tax revenue would be. This structure has led to widespread claims that Australia is effectively giving its natural gas away to foreign companies for below market value.

Energy companies have pushed back hard against the proposed tax, defending their current tax contributions and warning of negative economic consequences. Shell said it has invested US$60 billion in Australia since 2010 and paid A$12 billion in total Australian taxes over the past decade. The company also argued that Norway’s resource model is fundamentally different, as the Norwegian state takes direct equity stakes in energy projects and shares development risk, a structure not used in Australia. Chevron, which holds the majority stake in Gorgon, argued that Australia needs stable regulatory frameworks to attract investment across all sectors, claiming that a new export tax would undermine that stability and threaten domestic gas supply. Energy firm Santos added that the proposal itself has already damaged Australia’s reputation as a reliable investment destination.

Prime Minister Albanese has rejected comparisons between beer and gas tax revenue as “complete fantasy”, noting that the broader gas sector paid A$22 billion in total taxes last year. Speaking to a gathering of mining and energy executives, he reaffirmed that the government would not impose a new gas export tax in the upcoming budget, saying “the middle of a global fuel crisis is the worst possible time to jeopardise these partnerships, or the investment that underpins them.” Albanese, who recently completed a tour of Asian nations to secure long-term fuel supply agreements, added that gas exports are “directly linked to our national fuel security” and that Australia depends on billions in foreign investment from North American, Japanese and other international partners to develop gas resources.

However, critics of the government’s position argue that the prime minister’s objections do not hold up to scrutiny. University of Queensland economics professor John Quiggin noted that imposing a new export tax would not violate existing contracts, as no commercial agreement can bind future governments to permanent tax policy. He also pushed back on claims that the tax would drive away foreign investment, asking “Where are they going to go?” Quiggin added that the old argument that foreign investors must be treated with extreme leniency or they will abandon the market is outdated, pointing to shifting global norms including former US President Donald Trump’s unilateral imposition of global tariffs in recent years. Hepburn further noted that fears of deterring new gas investment conflict with Australia’s own climate targets, which require the country to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, meaning new large-scale gas development should not be prioritized anyway.

While the gas export tax is all but certain to be left out of next week’s budget, most political analysts agree that reform is ultimately inevitable, given the policy’s broad cross-partisan popularity, ranging from the left-wing Greens to the right-wing One Nation. Pocock and his supporters have vowed to continue their campaign, and Pocock tweeted earlier this week that “The pressure on government to act is growing and, at some point, the prime minister has to put Australia first.”

New South Wales Premier Chris Minns has announced that any state-level ban on the controversial pro-Palestinian slogan “globalise the intifada” will only move forward if Queensland’s existing ban on the phrase survives an upcoming High Court constitutional challenge. The announcement comes after a NSW parliamentary inquiry, convened in the aftermath of the alleged Bondi Beach terrorist attack, formally recommended the state government draft legislation to prohibit the phrase.

The slogan, commonly deployed by pro-Palestinian advocacy groups, references two historical popular uprisings in the occupied Palestinian territories. Australian Jewish community organizations have long argued that the slogan constitutes an explicit call for violence against Jewish people, making its public use unacceptable. Queensland’s center-right Liberal-National government was the first to act, banning both “globalise the intifada” and a second contentious phrase, “from the river to the sea”, earlier this year. The ban has already led to at least one individual being formally charged under the new legislation, but activist groups have challenged the law’s constitutionality and will argue their case before Australia’s highest court.

Speaking to NewsWire, Minns emphasized that his government will prioritize constitutional viability over rushed action. “If the laws in Queensland are successfully challenged, that means we can’t pursue them in NSW,” Minns said. “I’m being judicious here. I have to think about how these laws would be implemented not just next month, but years from now, and I want to make sure that our next step is constitutionally sound. If the Queensland ban is ultimately upheld by the High Court, we’ll pursue the ban here as well.”

Minns went on to defend his government’s post-attack crackdown on public protests, even as two key policy measures have already been struck down by the courts. Last month, a judicial ruling overturned emergency regulations that prohibited moving protests for a set window after a terror attack, with the judge finding the rules “impermissibly burdened” the implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication. An earlier ban on protests outside religious houses of worship was also overturned by the courts.

When asked if repeated court defeats had eroded public trust in his government, Minns rejected the suggestion. “I don’t think so, but I can guarantee you can find someone to come on a podcast and say the opposite is true,” he said. “My sense is people accept that it’s extraordinary times and that in extraordinary times you do need to pursue policies that you wouldn’t ordinarily implement. I’m not going to allow a situation where the temperature just gets repeatedly turned up after the worst terrorism event in the country’s history.”

On the overturned Bondi-specific protest laws, Minns argued the policy achieved its core goal despite its eventual defeat in court. “We received advice that it was the right policy at the right time, and despite being defeated in court, it was in place during the critical summer period,” he said. “It meant the police could say we’re not going to allow major divisive protests, for example, in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. I think that would have been a combustible situation. It’s difficult to give a counterfactual because the laws were in place and that unrest didn’t happen, but I think they were the right call. We’ve won a lot of court cases, too.”

Turning to broader questions of immigration and multiculturalism ahead of the 2027 state election, where Minns’ Labor government will face a resurgent right-wing One Nation party that has sought to capitalize on growing anti-immigrant sentiment, Minns called for clearer, more responsible rhetoric from political leaders. He specifically addressed recent comments by federal Opposition Leader Angus Taylor, who claimed migration from “bad countries” carries a higher risk of bringing “bad people” to Australia.

“Leaders have a responsibility to be specific about what you mean and what you say,” Minns said. “We’ve all seen, in different political guises, leaders step up and be ambiguous about what they mean to try and score a political advantage that way.”

Minns reaffirmed that multiculturalism has been a historic success for Australia, but argued the framework needs to adapt to current social tensions. “Multiculturalism has been a success in our country, but I think there’s an argument to say it needs to evolve a little bit,” he explained. “It does need to celebrate and understand differences. I also think we’ve got a responsibility to call out commonalities and the things that not only we have in common but we aspire to have in common.”

“There’s nothing wrong with saying that in Australia we want and expect, and the vast majority of people believe in, democracy, in freedom of association, in respect for women, in the rule of law,” he added. “That’s why millions of people have come from around the world to start a new life in Australia.”