标签： Oceania

As Australia’s Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion prepares to hear testimony from Jewish university staff and students, a senior opposition politician has launched a pointed public attack on the country’s two major state-funded broadcasters, demanding they address long-running allegations of systemic bias against Israel in their coverage of the ongoing Israel-Gaza war.

Julian Leeser, the opposition’s education spokesperson and member of the Berowra electorate who identifies as part of Australia’s Jewish community, made the demand on Monday, tying the call for broadcaster accountability to the federal government’s new anti-racism rules for Australian higher education institutions. Leeser confirmed that the country’s Special Envoy into Antisemitism, Julian Segal, has formally raised repeated complaints about the public broadcasters’ Israel coverage, which has unfolded amid a conflict that has killed more than 73,000 people in Gaza since the October 7, 2023 Hamas terror attack that left more than 1,000 mostly civilian Israelis dead.

“I think the public broadcasters actually have to be prepared to address systemic bias against Israel in their reporting, and I think they need to subject themselves to greater transparency mechanisms as outlined by the envoy,” Leeser told ABC Radio National in an interview, adding that the exact structure of new transparency rules would be determined by the ongoing Royal Commission.

Australia’s two public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS, have faced sustained criticism from peak national Jewish groups over their coverage of the 10-month-long Israel-Gaza conflict. Last week, the ABC issued a public correction and acknowledged it made a “bad mistake” when it incorrectly reported that 14,000 babies would die of starvation in Gaza within a 48-hour window.

Despite that misstep, ABC Editorial Director Gavin Fang defended the public broadcaster’s overall coverage during testimony to the Royal Commission, noting the outlet has made a deliberate effort to center the experiences of Australia’s Jewish community when reporting on rising antisemitism domestically. Fang added that covering the Middle East conflict, which has profound impacts on Australian communities, aligns directly with the ABC’s legislated charter obligation to deliver independent news and current affairs. “We have covered the impact of a variety of domestic attacks, for instance, on Jewish synagogues, on graffiti and other incidents of anti-Semitism,” he said.

For its part, SBS has faced criticism from Segal over its use of casualty statistics published by the Gaza Health Ministry, which was previously overseen by Hamas’ now-defunct civilian administration. Amanda Wicks, SBS Director of News and Current Affairs, pushed back against that criticism, noting the outlet always contextualizes its use of the data by clearly stating Hamas is recognized as a terrorist organization by Australia and controls the Gaza Strip.

Both broadcasters have also rejected repeated calls from Segal to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, a policy that critics argue disproportionately and unfairly restricts legitimate criticism of the Israeli government and its military actions in Gaza. Leeser, a staunch supporter of mandating the IHRA definition, pushed back on that critique, noting the definition explicitly states that criticism of Israel comparable to that leveled against any other sovereign nation cannot be classified as antisemitic.

Leeser’s calls for broadcaster accountability come as the federal government rolling out new mandatory anti-racism standards for Australian universities, which require institutions to establish more transparent public antisemitism complaint handling processes. The opposition has gone further, demanding that universities make combating antisemitism on campus a formal requirement to access federal funding. Pro-Palestinian student encampments have sprung up on multiple Australian university campuses since October 7, mirroring similar protests across the globe.

Leeser also slammed Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke for failing to mandate the IHRA definition for all universities, arguing that more than a year since the October 7 attacks, there is no more room for delay. “The universities said ‘oh, we don’t like IHRA, we’ll adopt our own definition’, and yet they’d had more than a year and failed to do so,” Leeser said. “The time for mucking around with these issues is long past. 15 people were allegedly murdered in cold blood on our most famous beaches because of their religion. The time to adopt IHRA is now, and I’m calling on the minister to mandate the IHRA definition.”

Leeser added that while legitimate criticism of Israel is acceptable, the spread of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery on university campuses crosses a clear line. “There are lots of Jewish people in this country who criticise the state of Israel, but the idea that you can walk around your university campus and use Nazi iconography to describe Israel and to describe Jews is just wrong,” he said.

Three individual stories of so-called ‘dreamers’—recipients of the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program—have cast a harsh spotlight on the Donald Trump administration’s aggressive crackdown on undocumented immigration, revealing how protected immigrants are being expelled from the only country many have ever called home, despite legal safeguards designed to prevent their deportation.

DACA was launched in 2012 to grant temporary protection from deportation to people who were brought to the United States as undocumented minors. The program allows recipients to legally live and work in the U.S. while they pursue long-term immigration status adjustments. Currently, an estimated 500,000 active DACA recipients, widely known as dreamers, live across the country, according to federal government data.

But new reporting from AFP details how the Trump administration, which has long sought to dismantle the program, has targeted hundreds of DACA recipients for deportation. According to advocacy organization Home is Here, which cites a formal Department of Homeland Security letter to Congress, U.S. immigration officials have arrested at least 343 DACA recipients and deported at least 86 of them, even while the program’s protections remained in place after courts blocked Trump’s earlier attempt to end DACA entirely during his first presidential term.

Jose Contreras, a 30-year-old DACA recipient who grew up in the U.S. after arriving as a child, thought he was safe from deportation when he attended a routine immigration hearing in early January. When he asked for a short stay of removal to wait for the birth of his first child, he told AFP immigration officials laughed at his request, reacting as if his ask was absurd. He was handcuffed, put on a plane, and deported to his native Honduras that same day. His son was born in Texas weeks later, in late February, without Contreras present for the birth.

“I lost it, you know. I fell to the ground. And then I cried,” Contreras said. “Because I wasn’t planning to not be there for my son.” After 118 days in Honduras, a U.S. court ultimately ruled his deportation was unlawful and ordered his return, allowing him to reunite with his family in Edinburg, Texas, where he now wears an ankle monitor required following his return.

A similar case unfolded for Maria de Jesus Estrada, 42, who was brought to the U.S. at age 15 and built a life in California. When she attended an immigration hearing accompanied by her 23-year-old daughter, she was immediately confronted by six immigration agents who ordered her arrested. Distraught, she only asked for a moment to say goodbye to her child. “I’m not gonna resist anything. I just need a minute. I need to hold my daughter. I need to hug my daughter,” she recalled telling agents. She was deported to Mexico that same day, before a court later ruled her expulsion illegal and ordered her return.

Immigration officials have defended the deportations by citing old, outstanding removal orders issued when Contreras and Estrada were minors. But their legal attorney Stacy Tolchin argues the cases prove the Trump administration has deliberately broken existing law to target protected dreamers. “The cases of Jose Contreras and Maria de Jesus Estrada are evidence of this administration’s unlawful and inhumane distortion of the law,” Tolchin said.

For other DACA recipients, there has been no lucky court-ordered return. Jessica Trevino, who was brought to the U.S. from Mexico at age 7 and has lived in the country almost her entire life, was arrested by immigration agents in Alamo, Texas, in late December as she left church with her family. Cellphone video of the encounter, which showed agents roughing up Trevino’s husband, spread widely on social media. Both Trevino and her husband were deported to Mexico in March, leaving their three U.S.-raised children behind to live with relatives in Texas.

Now living in Matamoros, Mexico, Trevino waits for U.S. courts to hear her case, and holds out hope she will return in time for her daughter’s 15th birthday in August. “Although I was not born in the United States, I have lived here my whole life,” she said. “Sometimes I go to sleep thinking that I will wake up at home.”

Advocacy groups say the deportations are part of a deliberate strategy to dismantle DACA through incremental action, after the Supreme Court blocked the administration’s attempt to end the program outright. “We are seeing this administration dismantling DACA through delay, denials, detentions and deportations,” said Todd Schulte, president of pro-immigration advocacy group FWD.us. The Trump administration is currently pressing Congress to pass a permanent resolution to the country’s long-running immigration policy dispute, as the future of DACA remains unresolved.

Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, announced Sunday that the country’s next national general election will take place on October 27 — the final date permitted under Israeli law — in a vote that is widely framed as a public referendum on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s tenure in office, shaped heavily by the fallout of the ongoing Gaza conflict. This election will mark the first time in decades that a sitting Israeli legislature has completed its full four-year term, with the current Knesset’s mandate set to expire on July 17.

In an official statement, the Knesset clarified that no dissolution legislation would be required to pave the way for the vote, noting that “since the current Knesset is expected to serve its full term and the next general election is already set by law for October 27, with no intention of shortening the legislature’s tenure, there is no need to enact a Knesset Dissolution Law in the usual sense.”

At 76 years old, Netanyahu — Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, who has held office across multiple non-consecutive terms — has already confirmed he will seek re-election, declaring publicly that he “intends to win” the upcoming contest. Political analysts widely view this election as the most consequential race of his decades-long political career.

In recent weeks, Netanyahu’s ruling coalition, one of the most right-wing governments in Israel’s history, has rushed to advance a slate of priority legislation to shore up support within his alliance and position the government strongly ahead of the vote. In a shift from his previous ideological alignment, Netanyahu revealed last month that he aims to form a broad cross-party national unity government after the election, stating it would be “not a right-wing, not a left-wing government that depends on Arab parties, but a broad national government.” The move appears designed to reframe his campaign around national cohesion rather than partisan ideology, a pivot intended to broaden his appeal to centrist voters.

Despite these strategic adjustments, recent public opinion polling paints a grim picture for the incumbent prime minister. Most Israeli voters currently support removing Netanyahu from office, with former Israeli military chief Gadi Eisenkot emerging as his most formidable challenger. A recent poll conducted by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem found that over 92% of Israeli respondents believe Iran emerged as the winner from recent regional conflict, while public support for Netanyahu’s leadership has plummeted from 40.5% in early March to just 29.4% in June.

Widespread public criticism has centered on the February ceasefire between Israel and Iran, brokered with U.S. involvement, which resulted in a bilateral agreement between Tehran and Washington that many Israelis view as disadvantageous to their country’s security interests. Persistent public anger also continues over the major security failures that preceded the October 7 Hamas attacks, a controversy that has steadily eroded Netanyahu’s public standing over the past year.

Several other divisive issues will shape voter sentiment ahead of the October vote. A bitter, long-running dispute over mandatory military service for ultra-Orthodox Jewish men has emerged as a major flashpoint. Netanyahu’s key ultra-Orthodox coalition allies have repeatedly threatened to bring down the current government if their community members are not granted continued exemption from military service, while the Israel Defense Forces and a large share of the general public argue that expanded conscription is critical amid years of ongoing conflict that have left the armed forces stretched thin. Other contentious issues include the controversial judicial overhaul package Netanyahu proposed before the Gaza war began, the prime minister’s ongoing personal corruption trials, and persistent uncertainty over long-term governance plans for the Gaza Strip post-conflict.

Regional conflicts against the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and Iran have created a uniquely volatile political backdrop for the election. Still, Netanyahu has framed his post-election agenda as advancing Israel’s regional strategic goals, arguing that a new unity government will help the country cement its military gains. “After we have removed the Iranian existential threat, the broad national government can make peace within ourselves, deal with the remnants of the Iranian axis and reap the fruits of our victory in political agreements like the one we are making with Lebanon — and there are a few more on the way,” he said in a recent statement.

Netanyahu’s comments confirm that his campaign will center on Israel’s recent military campaigns against Iran and Hezbollah, as he shifts from governing through a narrow ideologically aligned right-wing coalition to campaigning for a broader, security-focused governing mandate from Israeli voters.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has announced a sweeping overhaul of the country’s top government bodies, confirming plans to replace sitting Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko and shake up leadership at several key law enforcement agencies, in an announcement made Sunday. As of the initial statement, the Ukrainian leader has not disclosed the identity of Svyrydenko’s successor, nor has he offered detailed public reasoning for the planned leadership changes.

The shakeup arrives at a defining juncture in Ukraine’s more than four-year full-scale conflict with Russia. In recent weeks, Moscow has ramped up its campaign of lethal ballistic missile attacks across Ukrainian territory, while Kyiv is moving forward with plans to begin domestic manufacturing of U.S.-developed Patriot air defense systems — a capability that could drastically bolster Ukraine’s ability to fend off Russian airstrikes.

In a public post on the social platform X, Zelensky outlined the core urgent priorities driving the need for cabinet-level changes. These included advancing Ukraine’s accession negotiations with the European Union, advancing the domestic Patriot production program (for which the U.S. has already promised to grant a manufacturing license), and completing critical pre-winter preparations. Annual Russian strikes on Ukraine’s critical energy infrastructure have become a regular feature of the conflict, putting immense pressure on energy systems as temperatures drop each year. “We determined that these changes require a renewal of the Cabinet of Ministers,” Zelensky stated, offering no additional context for the decision.

Beyond the prime ministerial shift, Zelensky confirmed that Svyrydenko has been offered a new leadership role overseeing “relations with a key partner.” The outgoing prime minister previously led Ukrainian negotiations with the U.S. on a high-stakes minerals and investment agreement, though there has been no official confirmation that the new position is tied to that partnership. In her own response on X, Svyrydenko thanked Zelensky for the trust placed in her and affirmed she remains “ready to serve the Ukrainian state.” Zelensky also confirmed that leadership changes are planned for the heads of several law enforcement agencies, but declined to share further details on those adjustments.

Under Ukrainian parliamentary rules, all cabinet reshuffle moves require formal approval from the country’s legislature. However, since the 2022 Russian full-scale invasion, Ukrainian lawmakers have consistently unified behind Zelensky’s policy and personnel proposals, and rarely move to block his agenda. Ukrainian media outlets have already circulated two early potential candidates for the prime minister post: Sergiy Koretsky, chief executive officer of Ukraine’s state-owned energy giant Naftogaz, and Denys Shmygal, who previously held the prime minister role before Svyrydenko. It should be noted that the office of Ukrainian prime minister does not typically hold authority over military strategy or frontline combat operations, which remain under the direct control of Zelensky and his top military command.