UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese has delivered the 21-page report, ‘Torture and genocide: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967’, dated 19 February 2026. Albanese’s team outline the depths of depravity and inhumanity to which the Israeli regime has now sunk in its attempted destruction of the Palestinian people.

By Evan Jones | 27 April 2026, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/antisemitism-and-israel-a-challenge-to-the-australian-narrative,20974

A provocative Royal Commission submission by Dr Evan Jones argues that Australia’s antisemitism debate cannot be separated from Israel, Zionism and their political influence.

Submission to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion

Part 1

General

This submission can be reduced to one word — Israel.

There you have the answer to your inquiry. Dismantle apartheid Israel and see so-called “antisemitism” disappear overnight, save for a small ineradicable but prosecutable fringe

There is really no reason for this Royal Commission at all, as the problem is self-evident. The Commission will not solve the problem that it was formally established to resolve because its agenda is diversionary. Indeed, it will compound the problem because it will, in all probability (as it is seemingly intended to do), reinforce the influence of the Australian Zionist lobby and thus the ongoing impunity of Israel.

The problem arises from the conflation of two forces.

One: Israel is a nation founded on terrorism and wilfully sustained on deep-seated racism.

We know that nation-states are perennially born of violence, expropriation and repression (Australia as a case study), but Israel is a pronounced variation on a common colonialist theme. Israel was born of naked terrorism against an entire (non-Jewish) indigenous population. It was explicitly created and has been sustained as a racist apartheid state. Its borders have never been determined, envisaging ongoing expansion (lebensraum) — “from the river to the sea” (and beyond).

Palestinian Israelis (descendants of those whom the Zionist terrorist gangs failed to expel) are second-class citizens. Palestinian non-Israelis, under Occupation and under martial law, are denied the most basic human rights. Gaza has been a concentration camp since Sharon supposedly “disengaged” from Gaza in 2005.

The sadistic murder of Gazans since October 2023 is reminiscent of the Germans’ feverish pursuit of Jews and Bolsheviks after Operation Barbarossa in June 1941. Israel has long undermined United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) personnel and facilities, which attempt to instil a modicum of humanity into a population long starving from Israeli blockages. Israel endorses carnage by fanatical settlers on West Bank Palestinians, murdering and destroying Palestinian livelihoods at will — for which they enjoy absolute immunity.

The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) murder children with pleasure. Children are imprisoned indefinitely for throwing stones. Adult prisoners are tortured and murdered. Israel wilfully murders foreign dignitaries (most recently, the Iranian National Security Council chief Ali Larijani, reputed “moderate” and skilled negotiator), which highlights that mass murderer Benjamin Netanyahu has put to words what has been the manifesto of all Israeli leadership: there will never be a Palestinian state (September 2025).

Long-term ethnic cleansing has now turned to genocide, ongoing in defiance of the formal “ceasefire”. Israel destroys essential infrastructure, murders aid workers and journalists — because it can. The journalist murder count is now further “totting up” in southern Lebanon.

Representative — this month (March 2026) marks the 23rd anniversary of the crushing of American Rachel Corrie by an Israeli bulldozer.

UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese has delivered the 21-page report, ‘Torture and genocide: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967’, dated 19 February 2026. Albanese’s team outline the depths of depravity and inhumanity to which the Israeli regime has now sunk in its attempted destruction of the Palestinian people.

Some excerpts:

Torture has always been a central feature of Israel’s dispossession of Palestinians. Yet, since October 2023, Israel has employed it on a scale that suggests collective vengeance and destructive intent.

Torture is not confined to cells and interrogation rooms. Through the cumulative impact of mass displacement, siege, denial of aid and food, unrestrained military and settler violence and pervasive surveillance and terror, the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) has become a space of collective punishment, where the destruction of the conditions of life turns genocidal violence into a tool of collective torture with long-term mental and physical consequences for the occupied population.

During its Mandate in Palestine, Britain used torture as one of the counterinsurgency tactics honed in Ireland and later imparted to Zionist militias; such practices, a colonial legacy, were then absorbed into the Israeli security apparatus before and after 1948 as a tool of repression and a preventive measure against Palestinian resistance. From early State-building and through decades of occupation, Israel has practised and condoned coercive violence as a structural component of its apparatus of domination.

An ecosystem of discriminatory legal frameworks and abusive operational practices has metastasized, encompassing Israeli military detention sites and prisons.

Since October 2023, torture in detention has, been used on an unprecedented scale as punitive collective vengeance — a clear feature of genocide. All Palestinians have been treated collectively as “terrorists” and “security threats”.

For her luminous competence, commitment and courage, Albanese was subject to comprehensive oppressive sanctions by the unhinged U.S. Trump Administration in July 2025.

Israel defies all international institutions and laws that proscribe the abuse of state power. Israel’s lobbying and propaganda regime (hasbara) is probably the most extensive of any state in history. Israeli authorities lie about the state’s forces’ actions without remorse.

The Israeli state is a parasite, receiving over US$300 billion (AU$418.7 billion) in aid from U.S. governments since 1950 (a great deal of which flows back to U.S. weapons manufacturers), supplemented by an estimated US$2 billion (AU$2.8 billion) per annum in donations from overseas Jewish “charities”, propped up at the country taxpayers’ expense. In particular, the Jewish National Fund directs funds to obliterating indigenous history in historic Palestine.

In short, the state of Israel is a pariah state, a barbaric regime, an abomination.

Two: All self-described “official” Jewish representative organisations in Australia support and lobby for Israel unreservedly. It is a full-time occupation. 

Such “representative” organisations oppose basic human rights for Palestinians under Israeli control. They socialise their children into “a love of Israel” in Jewish “faith” schools. Some of their children are currently enrolled with the IDF to kill Palestinians.

Such organisations lobby Australian governments to support Israel, inhibiting Australian governments from adopting a principled stance towards Israeli criminality. They harass media management and editorial, thus gaining privileged access to and biased coverage from media outlets that the public relies on for supposedly unbiased information and opinion. Their ridiculous defences of Israel (op-eds, letters, buying off journalists) are published with great regularity. Anti-Zionist Australian Jews (vide Louise Adler and so on) and their organisations (the recently formed Jewish Council of Australia) are pilloried, indeed “excommunicated”.

In essence, Australian Jewish “representative” organisations act as a fifth column for a foreign state against Australian national interests – naturally antagonistic to ‘social cohesion’.

One and two in combination.

The Australian Jewish community, by virtue of its “official” representatives, courageous dissenters excepted, is complicit in Israeli genocide. And not just passively but actively. There has been no mea culpa on the part of executives of the key Jewish organisations (such as ECAJ, ZFA, AIJAC). Nobody in the Jewish community that underpins these organisations has sought to overturn the leadership of these key organisations in order to reorient their agenda and priorities.

In short, Israel and the “official” Australian Jewish community are joined at the hip.

It is not unrealistic to infer that the Bondi attack (and multiple incidents simply labelled “antisemitic”) is blowback for Israel’s character and actions and its local support network. The Israeli machine thus puts the security of global Jewry at risk (indeed, its own Jewish population) and doesn’t care.

A Zionist foot soldier is published in The Sydney Morning Herald (22 March), in denial regarding the intimate connection:

‘While David Leser’s article (SMH & Melbourne Age, 20 March [2026]) raises some thought-provoking points, it falls into the trap of attributing antisemitism in Australia to the actions of the Israeli Government. No other national or ethnic group in Australia is held to account for the actions of governments in countries overseas. So why is it considered reasonable for Jews in Australia to be relentlessly discriminated against for the actions of the Netanyahu Government?’

After the Bondi Beach murders, Israeli flags were well represented among the flower collections and mourners. Israel is apparently seen as the mother ship, the source of solace for those suffering, yet it is the ultimate cause of that suffering.

This bizarre anomaly is enhanced when the Zionist Federation of Australia (as befits its name) initiated the idea of inviting the Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, to Australia, subsequently legitimised and authorised by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and dragging the Governor-General into the sordid process.

Another foot soldier grasps the connection but declines to understand the implications (SMH, 9 January 2026):

‘President Herzog is the legitimate head of state of the internationally recognised democratic state of Israel, rightfully invited to commiserate with Australians after the appalling terrorist atrocity at Bondi, in which predominantly Jewish people were murdered and injured.’

One notes in passing that Israel is not a democracy but an ethnocracy — no amount of affirmation is going to change the lie and the blind spot in the letter writer’s eye. To repeat, Israel is apparently seen as the mother ship, the source of solace for those suffering, yet it is the ultimate cause of that suffering. ‘Rightfully invited’ — really?

Herzog is not a passive head of state but an active participant in Israeli barbarism. Herzog comes to Australia, spends a token moment with victim families and survivors, declines to visit the fire-bombed Orthodox (non-Zionist) Adass Israel synagogue (“for reasons of security”) and spends the bulk of his time playing Israeli politician (‘not the time for a two-state solution’, meets with ASIO and so on).  

The implication is ugly. Those murdered at Bondi are being instrumentalised (as with Netanyahu’s treatment of Hamas’ Israeli hostages) in the defence of the state of Israel and its current genocidal agenda. Appalling, no?

By Evan Jones | 27 April 2026, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/antisemitism-and-israel-a-challenge-to-the-australian-narrative,20974

Part 2

The Commission’s Terms of Reference

‘AND the determination of the Australian Government to respond to the attack, and the factors leading up to the attack, as a matter of urgency by addressing antisemitism within the Australian community, including since 7 October 2023.’

Investigating the factors leading up to the attack could and should have been the responsibility of the mooted and more suited Richardson review. A royal commission is not the most appropriate vehicle towards this end.

Any investigation regarding “antisemitism” in Australia has to put Israel front and centre. The “official” Jewish community, AKA the Zionist lobby, naturally wants to exclude it.

The appalling Segal Report contains no substantive reference to Israel (my dissection here and here), thus being not merely worthless but disingenuous (vide Gwenaël Velge’s summary of the counter-Segal Greenslade and Briskman report, Not in Our Name: Jewish Australians Speak Out) and dangerous. Ditto the absence of any substantive reference to Israel in the most recent annual report (December 2025) of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (sic) (dissected here).

‘AND that the Australian Government has adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism.’

This submitter is frankly gobsmacked to find that this fraudulent “definition” has been officially adopted. The definition has been widely criticised, including by one of its originators, Kenneth Stern. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition is essentially about demonising criticism of Israel. Any proposed definition of antisemitism that attempts to delineate the terms on which one is allowed to criticise Israel without censure is automatically illegitimate.

The adoption of the IHRA definition nullifies any legitimacy that the paraphernalia of a royal commission might have and destroys any prospect of an honest analysis and a substantive functional prognosis. This adoption of the IHRA definition gives the impression that the Royal Commission, even inadvertently, will serve as yet another front for the pro-Israel lobby.

With the Royal Commission proceeding based on the IHRA definition, it can only turn into an inquisition. It can have nothing intelligent or ethical to offer about real antisemitism and can have nothing to offer in terms of genuinely dealing with it. It will be remembered as a squandering of the significant money that funds it and for the farcical theatre that is its essence.

‘AND recognising that strengthening the national consensus in support of democracy, freedom and the rule of law (social cohesion) provides the strongest defence against antisemitism and other forms of religious and ideologically motivated extremism.’

This sentence reads like it was written by AI. Who wrote this rubbish? One cannot have social cohesion as long as a particular Australian community coheres and operates actively as a fifth column in support of a foreign rogue state and influences Australian politics, both foreign and domestic, and media towards that end.

AND that hearing from the Jewish Australian community will be important to informing the recommendations of your inquiry and recognising concerns relating to educational and cultural institutions, and other sections of Australian society.’

Which ‘Jewish Australian community’? Is this obscurantism a product of naivete or of cynical contempt? Is the pro-Israel lobby running this show? Will anti-Zionist Jews and their organisations be consulted? Will anti-Zionist non-Jewish organisations (which have Jewish membership), such as the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, be consulted?

‘…and recognising concerns relating to educational and cultural institutions…’ Meaning? Which and whose concerns? Is this an oblique reference to forthcoming censorship, sackings, institutional defunding and hasbara implants as foreshadowed in the Segal Report?

To the Honourable Virginia Bell AC

We do… appoint you to be a Commission of inquiry, and require and authorise you to inquire into the following matters:

(a) tackling antisemitism by:…

This section is at the heart of the Commission’s Terms of Reference misdirection. Misdiagnosed symptoms are highlighted rather than causes.

The authorities need to cut the umbilical cord between the Australian Jewish community (including demolishing the pernicious influence of its Zionist leadership) and the criminal state of Israel.

In particular, (a)(iv) deserves comment. The ‘mental health and wellbeing of Jewish Australians’? No doubt the Commission hearings will consider the mental health of anti-Zionist Australian Jews who experience the mental anguish of seeing Jewish Israelis acting like Nazis (and supposedly in the name of global Jewry), but who also suffer the obloquy of abuse by the Australian Zionist Jewish establishment for their ethical stance.

As for the mental health of Australian Zionist Jews, tied inexplicably to a racially supremacist Israel, it is a psychopathology and to their own account — save that their aberrant mental state has the Palestinians (and now the Iranians and, once again, the Lebanese) as its ongoing victims.

Zionist Jewish University students, fresh from their “faith” schools with their “love of Israel” and now nurtured in the bosom of the Zionist Australasian Union of Jewish Students, find their “sensitivities” affected by campus protests against Israeli genocide. So as not to upset these sensitive souls, inured to the genocide of lesser ethnicities, campus protests have to be shut down.

If the Commission is concerned with shoring up the ‘mental health and wellbeing of [Zionist] Jewish Australians’, it is not an agenda that any Australian imbued with ethical sympathies (which includes anti-Zionist Jewish Australians) could have any tolerance for.

‘(b) making any recommendations to assist law enforcement, border control, immigration and security agencies…’

Is this code for inhibiting access to refugee status of people escaping Israeli onslaughts and who naturally take a dim view of Israel’s modus operandi?

‘(c) examine the circumstances surrounding the antisemitic Bondi terrorist attack…’

This was supposed to be the focus of the Richardson review, but that was merged inappropriately into the Royal Commission’s framework. Now Richardson has retired, recognising the Commission’s structured dysfunctionality. The most important subject for investigation is now without a suitable home and personnel to proceed.

‘(d) make any other recommendations… that would contribute to strengthening social cohesion…’

The means to strengthening social cohesion is to dismantle the pro-Israel lobby in Australia and for the Albanese Government to develop and sustain a principled foreign policy. By contrast, the Terms of Reference of this Commission appear to direct the Commission’s operations to enhance that lobby’s influence and to ignore and to implicitly condone the Government’s cowardice.

Methinks that the Royal Commission’s slip is showing. One gets the strong impression that one is in for more than farce. Rather, the Australian public is in for an authoritarian state run in the interests of an Australian Zionist mafia, with which the current Australian Labor Government is already in cahoots (and the Liberal Opposition even more craven).

The government has calculated preliminary costs. The ASA has the documents. But when a citizen asks, the agency claims it cannot find them.

Whose Cradle? Whose Grave?

26 April 2026 Dr Andrew Klein, https://theaimn.net/whose-cradle-whose-grave/

I. The Question the Government Will Not Answer

In July 2025, Michael West Media submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Australian Submarine Agency (ASA). The question was simple: what are the latest cost estimates for a solution for the treatment and storage of high‑level radioactive waste from AUKUS?

This is not a radical question. Defence is supposed to provide “cradle to grave” costings for any major capability before it is approved. The AUKUS submarines were approved without those costings. The $368 billion price tag does not include radioactive waste storage and disposal.

The government has calculated preliminary costs. They exist. They are just not willing to share them with the people who will have to pay for them.

When the ASA finally responded, it did not provide the estimate. It claimed it could not find it.

The agency advised that:

“Preliminary searches have been carried out within one branch of one division of the ASA … that branch has advised that approximately 3,000 documents are potentially in scope. They would require manual examination.”

Three thousand documents. For one simple costing request. The agency is managing a $368 billion project, and it cannot find a single estimate for a cost that will likely run into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

As Rex Patrick, the former senator and transparency crusader, put it: “Quite unbelievable!”

II. The Cradle: Billions in Wealth Transfer

The cradle of the AUKUS program is a cascade of taxpayer funds flowing out of Australia.

The 2024 AUKUS budget of $53–63 billion has already blown out to $71–96 billion – a 52 per cent increase for the upper band. The Collins class submarine upgrade has blown out from $4–5 billion to $7.8–11 billion – a 120 per cent increase.

The money is not staying in Australia. It is flowing to American and British defence contractors. The US has expanded its AUKUS submarine support package to $1 billion. Australia is spending at least $30 billion on a new construction yard, and $21 billion on missile manufacturing.

The total cost of ownership of AUKUS could exceed $1 trillion.

This is not defence. This is wealth transfer – from Australian taxpayers to foreign defence giants.

III. The Grave: A Liability We Will Never Escape

The grave is the radioactive waste. The $368 billion AUKUS price tag does not include radioactive waste storage and disposal. That cost will be enormous – experts estimate it could double the total AUKUS price tag.

Under the revised AUKUS agreement, Australia will be liable for any problems or losses associated with disposing of nuclear waste. If something goes wrong, Australia pays. The liability is indefinite. The waste will remain hazardous for tens of thousands of years.

The government has calculated preliminary costs. The ASA has the documents. But when a citizen asks, the agency claims it cannot find them.

As Rex Patrick has noted, if the Minister asked for the latest cost estimates, he would get them almost instantly. But when a citizen asks, the agency claims it cannot find them.

IV. The Secrecy Is Deliberate

This is not the first time the government has gone to extraordinary lengths to hide information about AUKUS nuclear waste.

The ASA has argued that a $360,000 report on potential locations for a high‑level nuclear waste dump – a decision that will impact Australia for millennia – is a Cabinet document and must remain secret.

It took the agency to the Administrative Review Tribunal to fight the release of this report. The agency spent taxpayer dollars on lawyers to argue that the public should not be allowed to see a roadmap for where the most toxic material on our planet may be dumped for tens of thousands of years.

The report was prepared on unclassified computers and transferred on unclassified networks. It was never a Cabinet document. But the agency successfully argued that it should be treated as one.

This is not transparency. This is a cover‑up.

V. The Pattern: Moral Disengagement

This is the same pattern we have seen with Robodebt. With the Pezzullo affair.

The government has calculated the costs. The government has the documents. The government knows where the waste will go. But it will not tell you.

Why? Because the numbers are too big. The decisions are too controversial. The truth is too uncomfortable.

So they hide behind “Cabinet‑in‑confidence.” They hide behind “preliminary estimates.” They hide behind “3,000 documents.”

And they hope you will stop asking.

VI. The Mess at the Australian Submarine Agency

The ASA is not just disorganised. It is in a mess.

In November 2024, the government asked Boston Consulting Group to review the agency’s organisational structure. A contract was signed for $2.7 million. In April 2025, it was amended to $7.4 million. Three months later, it was amended again to a whopping $12.1 million.

In parallel, the defence minister asked former Defence Secretary Dennis Richardson to undertake an urgent top‑to‑bottom review of the ASA amid “serious concerns” about how it was managing AUKUS.

None of that seems to have helped. The agency still cannot find its own cost estimates.

VII. The Opportunity Cost

Every dollar spent on AUKUS is a dollar not spent on aged care, on health, on education, on housing, on climate action, on the things that actually keep Australians safe and well.

The $368 billion price tag is already blowing out. The waste disposal costs will add hundreds of billions more. The total could exceed $1 trillion.

This is not a defence strategy. It is a wealth transfer strategy – dressed up in flags and naval jargon.

The money is leaving Australia. The profits are flowing to Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Babcock. The waste is staying here. The liability is staying here. The secrecy is staying here.

VIII. Whose Cradle? Whose Grave?

The cradle belongs to the defence contractors. The profits flow to their shareholders. The grave belongs to Australia – to the communities that will host the waste, to the taxpayers who will pay the bill, to the generations who will inherit the liability.

This is not a failure of process. It is the process working as designed.

The government has calculated the costs. The government has the documents. The government knows where the waste will go. But it will not tell you – because the truth is too uncomfortable, and the wealth transfer is too profitable.

IX. A Final Word

Rex Patrick is one of the few people in this country who refuses to stop asking. He is a “Transparency Warrior” – a former senator and submariner who has made it his mission to hold the powerful to account.

He needs support. He needs attention. He needs people to share his work, to amplify his voice, to demand answers.

The truth will still be buried in those 3,000 documents – unless we keep digging.

Whose cradle? Whose grave? The answer is clear. And the silence is complicity.

April 27, 2026 , Tilman Ruff, Honorary Principal Fellow, School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, https://theconversation.com/a-new-nuclear-arms-race-is-accelerating-theres-only-one-way-to-stop-it-281130?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20April%2027%202026%20-%203750638401&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20April%2027%202026%20-%203750638401+CID_b464943fe1c89ff64a2ce9bfba273fa3&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=A%20new%20nuclear%20arms%20race%20is%20accelerating%20Theres%20only%20one%20way%20to%20stop%20it

This week in New York, diplomats from almost every nation will convene for a four-week review of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the most comprehensive nuclear arms agreement in the world.

The stakes could hardly be higher.

Russia, Israel and the United States, all nuclear-armed, are conducting illegal wars of aggression against countries without nuclear weapons. Nuclear-armed India and Pakistan engaged in conflict last year across their disputed border, raising the spectre of nuclear escalation.

In February, the last remaining agreement constraining Russian and US nuclear weapons lapsed, with nothing to replace it. The two countries account for nearly 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons.

And all nine nuclear-armed states are investing vast sums in modernising their arsenals with more capable and dangerous weapons. Deployed nuclear weapons and those on high alert, ready to be launched within minutes, are also rising.

All these developments have brought the Doomsday Clock, which assesses how close the world is to existential catastrophe, closer to midnight than it has ever been since 1947.

What is the NPT?

The NPT is considered a cornerstone of international law in relation to nuclear weapons and disarmament. It has the widest membership of any arms control agreement, with 190 states. These include five countries that manufactured and exploded nuclear weapons before 1967 – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. All other members do not have nuclear weapons.

North Korea is the only state to have joined the NPT and then renounced it. India, Israel and Pakistan, all nuclear-armed, along with South Sudan, are the only countries that have never joined.

The NPT is essentially a bargain struck in the late 1960s between the states that had nuclear weapons and those that did not. The first five nuclear-armed states – also permanent members of the UN Security Council with veto rights – committed to end the nuclear arms race and eliminate their arsenals.

In exchange, states without nuclear weapons agreed to forego acquiring them, with the sweetener of assistance in developing peaceful uses of nuclear technology.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was established to ensure non-nuclear states did not acquire weapons. However, the treaty did not establish any timeframes, defined processes, or verification or enforcement mechanisms for nuclear-armed nations to disarm.

The NPT entered into legal force in 1970, initially for 25 years. It was hoped the task of nuclear disarmament would be accomplished by then.

When this was clearly not the case in 1995, the treaty was indefinitely extended, thereby removing an important source of pressure on nuclear-armed states to fulfil their side of the bargain. Since then, there have been reviews every five years to debate implementation of the treaty.

Rarely consensus

These conferences, however, have been fraught.

In 2015, for example, Canada, the UK and US blocked adoption of a painstakingly negotiated text at the behest of Israel, a non-member of the treaty. And in 2022, Russia blocked adoption of the final text, mainly due to references to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine, which it attacked and occupied.

Since 1995, only two review conferences have produced an agreed outcome document.

In 2000, the members agreed to 13 practical steps to progress nuclear disarmament, but these remain almost completely unimplemented. And in 2010, the members agreed to a 64-point action plan, but implementation has been variable and weak, particularly for the 22 actions relating to disarmament.

The NPT has been moderately effective, though, in discouraging additional states from acquiring nuclear weapons. A number of countries, such as Canada, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, South Korea and Australia, gave up nuclear weapons programs or ambitions after joining.

But when it comes to disarmament, the treaty has failed dismally.

The head of this year’s conference, Do Hung Viet, has stressed the risk of failing to find consensus again at this year’s review.

It may not put an end to the NPT itself but […] it may hollow out the NPT. We may lose the credibility of the NPT itself

Two main challenges ahead

In the current dysfunctional international environment, expectations for this year’s conference are low.

Nuclear-armed states have not only failed to disarm, they are growing, modernising and threatening to use their arsenals in an accelerating arms race. And two recent developments are likely to cast further shadows over the debate.

The first is Russia’s unprecedented weaponisation of nuclear facilities in Ukraine, including operating nuclear power plants with huge quantities of radioactive materials in the reactor cores and in spent fuel ponds. Russian forces have engaged in a number of reckless actions, including:

• 
  attacking and damaging the facilities
• interfering with their operation and terrorising staff
• using some as military bases
• and jeopardising the power and water supplies critical to the essential cooling of reactors and spent fuel.

These actions risk a radiological disaster extending far beyond Ukraine’s borders.

A major failing of the last review conference in 2022 was that no measures were passed to protect nuclear facilities from attack.

The second major issue confronting this year’s review: the US–Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Both countries have cited Iran’s imminent acquisition of nuclear weapons as a pretext for their attacks, despite the fact US intelligence officials and the head of the IAEA said this wasn’t the case.

The might-is-right attacks by the US and Israel raise profound questions for the world’s non-nuclear nations in the value of adhering to the NPT. Why should they comply with the treaty’s stringent requirements when nuclear-armed states can use illegal force against them, at their will?

Non-proliferation cannot be secured by war. In fact, for the surviving members of Iran’s regime (and leaders of other nations), the war likely reinforces the opposite lesson: preventing military aggression is best assured by having nuclear weapons.

The risk of other states now following the North Korean model – leaving the NPT and developing an initially clandestine nuclear weapons program – is much higher.

In the nuclear age, security is either shared or non-existent. The only safe and sustainable future is predicated on eliminating nuclear weapons. This can only be achieved through cooperation, negotiation and international law, backed up by equitable verification.

Caitlin Johnstone, Apr 26, 2026

Australia’s “antisemitism envoy” Jillian Segal has published a handbook which unequivocally clarifies that her office exists not to protect Australian Jews from discrimination, but to stomp out criticism of the state of Israel.

However bad you’re imagining it is, it’s worse. The handbook, set to be formally launched later this week under the title “Understanding Antisemitism in Australia,” explicitly conflates antisemitism and antizionism with statements like “Antisemitism and antizionism are both expressions of hatred towards Jews” and asserting that it is antisemitic to accuse Israel of “apartheid, oppression, racism and genocide.”

It is therefore unambiguously the official position of the Australian government’s appointed authority on antisemitism that it is hateful and abusive toward Jews and their religion to oppose the racist political ideology underpinning the modern state of Israel.

So when Australians hear Jillian Segal and government officials talking about how there’s been an increase in “antisemitism” in our country and saying extreme measures must be taken to stop it, it’s important to be clear that this is the “antisemitism” they are talking about. They are talking about criticism of Israel.

Let’s go through the handbook together and highlight some revealing excerpts, shall we?

The forward in the handbook stresses the importance of the Australian government’s endorsement of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which has been opposed around the world for its conflation of criticism of Israel with hateful actions toward Jews. Under the IHRA definition it is considered antisemitic to claim that Israel is a racist endeavor, or to compare Israel’s abuses to those of Nazi Germany — both of which are entirely legitimate criticisms which should be put forward far more often than they are. Much of the handbook follows from the premises of the IHRA definition.

Segal’s office states that the handbook “is intended as a practical resource for schools, universities, public servants, community organisations and anyone seeking to understand antisemitism today.”

Segal’s office says that antisemitism “morphs” over the ages, from the blood libels and “Christ-killer” accusations of the Middle Ages to the racism of Nazi Germany, and has now morphed so that “antisemitic tropes are conveyed and justified in the language of human rights and international legal arguments.”

“For example, sometimes Jews are labelled and libelled as ‘settler-colonialists’, ‘oppressors’, and a symbol of a global system of domination that ‘can seemingly accommodate even the murder of Jews as Jews’,” the envoy proclaims.

Do you see how the subject was moved to lump medieval superstitions about Jews in with entirely legitimate criticisms of the modern state of Israel? According to Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, criticising Israel using “language of human rights and international legal arguments” is not meaningfully different from saying that Jews drink the blood of Christian children.

This, clearly, is stark raving insanity.

“Legitimate criticism of Israel is not antisemitic,” the envoy concedes, then proceeds to completely negate this concession with everything that follows. “However, there are many examples of antisemitic imagery, tropes, conspiracy theories and propaganda (echoing medieval myths) that have found their way into anti-Israel discourse. It is also increasingly common for the word ‘Zionist’ (or iterations of it) to be used as cover or proxy for ‘Jew ’.”

This is completely made up. The claim that critics of Israel’s abuses use the word “Zionist” when they really mean “Jew” is just something Israel apologists started asserting with no substantiation whatsoever a few years ago. They have no evidence for this assertion apart from the frequency and forcefulness which with they assert it.

The envoy defines Zionism as “the belief that the Jewish people have the right to self-determination within their ancestral homeland,” which is misleading at best. That’s not what Zionism is. Zionism is what we see before us today. The genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing and nonstop war and abuse. That’s what Zionism is, as evidenced by material reality. The best definition of Zionism is its real-world manifestations. Zionism is what it looks like when you give the Zionists everything they want.

“A new variant of antisemitic atrocity denial emerged in the wake of the 7 October 2023 Hamas terrorist attacks — the deadliest day for Jewish people since the Holocaust,” the envoy writes. “Disturbingly, these atrocities have been met by some with denial, minimisation, justification and distortion — echoing Holocaust denial, minimisation, and distortion.”

Segal’s office is here telling us that it is antisemitic to talk about the glaring plot holes in the narratives about mass rapes, beheaded babies and babies cooked in ovens on October 7, or to talk about the large number of Israelis who were killed by IDF fire under the Hannibal Directive, or to “justify” the attack by pointing out the monstrous Israeli abuses which gave rise to it.

The envoy writes of the importance of “Standing firm against antisemitism parading as ‘anti-racism’,” stressing the IHRA position that framing Israel as a racist endeavor is hateful toward Jews. A flyer saying “We don’t want your two states. We want all of 48” is labeled “antisemitic, because there is only one Jewish country.”

Segal’s office warns of the dangers of “Holocaust inversion,” which is when “Israel and Jews are portrayed as Nazi-like perpetrators of mass atrocities and genocide,” which is bad because it “serves to demonise and delegitimise Israel, Israelis and Jews.”

To be clear, every relevant humanitarian institution on earth has said that Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza. These groups include:

1. The United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory

2. The International Association of Genocide Scholars

3. B’Tselem (an Israeli organization)

4. Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (another Israeli organization)

5. Amnesty International

6. Doctors Without Borders

7. The European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights

8. Human Rights Watch

9. The International Federation for Human Rights

10. The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention

The list of humanitarian institutions who say Israel is NOT committing genocide in Gaza includes:

1. Nobody

2. No one

3. Zero

4. Nothing

5. Nada

6. Zilch

7. Sweet damn all

8. A complete absence

9. Diddly squat

10. Bupkis

This is not some fringe conspiracy theory. It is a thoroughly established and entirely indisputable fact. Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism is saying that facts are antisemitic…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Throughout the handbook, the feelings of Australian Jews are cited over and over again as supremely important and of far more urgent a concern than genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and wars of immense geopolitical consequence…………………………………………………………………………………………

Virtually nothing is said about the real victims. The murdered, displaced and terrorized targets of Israeli atrocities in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Iran. The war orphans. The child amputees and burn victims who were operated on without anesthesia. The Palestinians being raped and tortured in Israeli prisons. The people who will carry the physical and psychological wounds from their holocaust with them for the rest of their lives.

They are not regarded as important by Jillian Segal. The real crisis, in her mind, is people talking about these things and making Jewish Australians feel upset.

Absolutely psychotic. We cannot allow our country to continue to be dragged in this direction.https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/australias-antisemitism-envoy-makes?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=195493800&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Many social media articles lately push a familiar argument: as defence spending rises, government services fall behind. The more we allocate to the military, the more strain we place on the systems people rely on every day.

There’s nothing new about that trade-off.

I was reminded of a revealing example from the Iraq War era – one that says as much about honesty in government as it does about priorities.

The story began with the “Welfare to Work” (WtW) program introduced by the Howard government in 2005. Its stated aim was to increase workforce participation among single parents, people with disabilities, and older unemployed Australians. The policy details matter less than what came next.

For some time, WtW attracted little attention. That changed in March 2007 – an election year, and a moment when the government needed good news. Suddenly, the program was being promoted as a success.

Joe Hockey, then Employment Minister, pointed to what he described as a $500 million “budget surprise,” attributing it to falling numbers of people receiving income support. The implication was clear: welfare reform was working, and fewer Australians needed assistance.

But the numbers told a different story.

Disability Support Pension (DSP) figures for the period at the time showed:

• 2006: 712,163
• 2007: 714,156
• 2008: 732,367

These were not declining figures. They were rising.

So where did the supposed $500 million saving come from?

Contemporaneous accounts from within the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations suggest that “savings” of this kind were not simply the by-product of policy success. Rather, departments were under pressure to identify substantial reductions in projected spending – figures that did not always align neatly with underlying demand.

In practical terms, that meant looking for money that could be reclassified, deferred, or absorbed elsewhere. The distinction matters. On paper, it looks like efficiency. In reality, it can amount to something closer to accounting necessity.

What can be said with confidence is this: the demand for support did not fall in the way the government claimed. Yet a saving was still found.

The question then becomes: why?

In February 2007, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney visited Australia. Shortly afterwards, Prime Minister John Howard committed additional Australian support to the war in Iraq, including logistics personnel and army trainers.

The timing is difficult to ignore.

Governments do not operate in silos. Budgetary decisions in one area are often shaped by pressures in another, even if those connections are never made explicit. What is presented publicly as a policy dividend can, in practice, reflect shifting priorities behind closed doors.

Around the same period, heightened national security messaging helped frame the broader political environment – reinforcing the sense that defence spending was not just necessary, but urgent.

None of this requires speculation to be troubling.

The numbers didn’t move the way the government said they did. The narrative, however, did.

And once a narrative takes hold – particularly in an election year – it can be remarkably effective at obscuring the more complicated truth beneath it.

Once upon a time, “lying and contempt” were accusations reserved for one side of politics. These days, it’s harder to pretend they belong to any one party alone.

Michelle Fahy and Elizabeth Minter, Apr 25, 2026, https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/built-to-fail-nacc-the-integrity?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=195408717&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

This is a short extract from our latest investigation, undertaken in collaboration with journalist Nick Feik, which was published today by The Australia Institute’s The Point. Click link below to read the full story now. We will publish and email the full text in a week or so.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission’s performance since its inception has been widely condemned. The leadership of Commissioner Paul Brereton, in particular, has drawn heavy criticism

The mismanagement of his conflicts of interest, firstly in relation to Robodebt and then his potential conflict arising from defence-related investigations, has undermined the reputation of an institution whose success relies on its transparency and accountability, as have the NACC’s inordinate secrecy and its refusal to hold any public hearings to date.

As a result, greater responsibility for NACC investigations has been placed in the hands of its three deputy commissioners. However none of these deputies has been a judge or senior legal professional. By comparison, the dozens of assistant commissioners who’ve served the NSW ICAC, for example, have overwhelmingly been SC or KC, and many were also judges.

Indeed, the NACC’s three current deputy commissioners as a group represent the least qualified combination of deputies permitted under the NACC Act.

This months-long investigation raises major concerns about the suitability of all three deputy commissioners, casting serious new doubt on the legitimacy of the NACC as currently constituted…

Two current NACC Deputy Commissioners were appointed to the NACC straight from jobs into which they had been parachuted by Coalition governments: Nicole Rose and Ben Gauntlett were both “captain’s picks” into public roles that ordinarily required the use of a transparent merit-based selection process. In neither case did the Coalition do this.

Deputy Commissioner Rose, the delegated decision maker who decided not to investigate the Robodebt Six, has a diploma of hotel management as her highest academic qualification. She was handed two CEO roles, at AUSTRAC and CrimTrac, by then Justice Minister Michael Keenan, ahead of vastly more experienced candidates, including a judge, barristers, and a former police commissioner.

Deputy Commissioner Gauntlett, meanwhile, was handpicked by Scott Morrison’s Coalition Government as Disability Discrimination Commissioner, a move that was condemned by numerous human rights legal experts at the time for not being an open merit-based selection process as required.

Until the Government delivers “a powerful, transparent and independent NACC – one with teeth”, as promised by Prime Minister Albanese – the NACC will continue to be a running sore in the nation’s integrity framework, mistrusted and maligned by the public. It could be argued that the NACC was set up to fail.

Read the full story at The Point.

• PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
• 19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
• Antisemitism and Israel: A challenge to the Australian narrative.
• How AUKUS is Becoming the Largest Wealth Transfer in Australian History – and Why the Government Won’t Tell You the Cost .
• UK parliament’s AUKUS inquiry report questions if Britain can keep nuclear submarine promises.    
• Australia’s “Antisemitism Envoy” Makes It Clear That Israel’s Critics Are The Real Target.
•  Built to fail? The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC): the integrity body undermined from within
•  From Welfare to War: Following the 2007 Money Trail

Moreover, a coincident anniversary—25 April, Anzac Day in Australia—made me think of some eerie similarity. This central day in Australian war memorial practice marks the defeat of British imperial forces, including over 8,000 Australian deaths, at Gallipoli in 1915. Churchill ordered the amphibious assault to secure control of the Dardanelles and Turkish Straits, and knock the Ottoman Empire, which controlled what Westerners think of now as the Middle East, out of the First World War. The grandiose, reckless plan failed; perhaps like the USA’s assault on the Hormuz Strait.

The conflict between the British, European and American empires and the Ottoman empire was central to the causes and course of World War One, if often forgotten in the West. Two lingering effects of this contention are widely known: the Balfour Declaration, which made a dishonest promise of states for Israel and Palestine, and the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which parcelled out the ‘Middle East’ between the British and the French to defeat Arab nationalism.

But less known is that this conflict did not end in 1918, nor by the Peace of Versailles. In the years 1919 to 1923, the British Empire punched on to secure what was denied Churchill at Gallipoli. They fought to expand their empire while “a general crisis of European control was well under way across much of Asia” (Darwin, After Tamerlane, p. 382). The extended “small wars” of World War One continued to the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. This “remarkable compromise” recognised Türkiye as an independent republic, defined the political geography of West Asia that is still with us, before oil was what mattered in the Middle East (the region produced 1 per cent of world output in 1920, and 5 per cent in 1939, principally from Iran)

Apr 25, 2026, Burning Archive, Jeff Rich,

Sooner or later, histories of colonisation, and decolonisation, must deal with the question of violence. So much depends, in history, on how the experience of violence is ordered collectively as war, empire, memory and resistance.

“Decolonisation is always a violent phenomenon,” declared Frantz Fanon. It may be right, from the beginning. As described in the climax of this month’s Book Club history, Magellan met a violent death at the hands of the resistance in the Philippines . . . and in revenge for his own unhinged violence and holy man madness.

But, on the other hand, Gandhi preached and practised non-violence, although there were fierce debates across the Indian independence movement about the question of when is violent rebellion justified. Still, more than any single individual, Gandhi has inspired people to believe that empires can be dismantled by peaceful means.

Violence and the “small wars” or “anticolonial uprisings” of the colonial frontier will be my theme for the next two weeks in this extended Season on Decolonisation.

I am spacing my reflections out over two weeks. Why? Three reasons.

Firstly, violence is challenging to write about in this time of war and unrestrained violence in many places. I am opening up a difficult conversation here, with no intent to close it after just one week.

Secondly, there is an important history book on imperial violence that I wanted to share, but it may best be done over a couple of weeks, including through sharing this week an interview with the author, conducted by Jeffrey Sachs.

Thirdly, I did two big interviews on these themes this week—with Jamarl Thomas and Pascal Lottaz— and wanted to share my reflections, beyond the recorded talk, on these topics of violence, our world crisis as a process of likely violent decolonisation, and lessons from history about how the USA empire is disintegrating.

Coincidentally, the Anzac Day memorial prefigures all three themes.

Anzac Day and the Forgotten Treaty of Lausanne

Moreover, a coincident anniversary—25 April, Anzac Day in Australia—made me think of some eerie similarity. This central day in Australian war memorial practice marks the defeat of British imperial forces, including over 8,000 Australian deaths, at Gallipoli in 1915. Churchill ordered the amphibious assault to secure control of the Dardanelles and Turkish Straits, and knock the Ottoman Empire, which controlled what Westerners think of now as the Middle East, out of the First World War. The grandiose, reckless plan failed; perhaps like the USA’s assault on the Hormuz Strait.

The conflict between the British, European and American empires and the Ottoman empire was central to the causes and course of World War One, if often forgotten in the West. Two lingering effects of this contention are widely known: the Balfour Declaration, which made a dishonest promise of states for Israel and Palestine, and the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which parcelled out the ‘Middle East’ between the British and the French to defeat Arab nationalism.

But less known is that this conflict did not end in 1918, nor by the Peace of Versailles. In the years 1919 to 1923, the British Empire punched on to secure what was denied Churchill at Gallipoli. They fought to expand their empire while “a general crisis of European control was well under way across much of Asia” (Darwin, After Tamerlane, p. 382). The extended “small wars” of World War One continued to the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. This “remarkable compromise” recognised Türkiye as an independent republic, defined the political geography of West Asia that is still with us, before oil was what mattered in the Middle East (the region produced 1 per cent of world output in 1920, and 5 per cent in 1939, principally from Iran). It demilitarised the Straits, which became the foundation of the 1936 Montreux Convention, which some commentators have proposed as a model to resolve the disputes over the Hormuz Strait (as I discussed in my interview with Pascal Lottaz). It set the course for the modern history of Türkiye, and new forms of imperial colonialism in Egypt, the Levant, Iraq and Iran.

This forgotten, crucial treaty came to mind this week because of those connections with the small forgotten wars of colonialism, the resolution of our contemporary wars in West Asia, and a paradox that is often overlooked when commentators make cartoon comparisons of British and US American hegemony. 1923 was the high noon of British empire, when it controlled more territory than at any other time. The British made their empire great again by making the Middle East, but before the oil wells provided much return on investment. It was a paradoxical success, an imperial Pyrrhic victory. As John Darwin wrote,

Once the brief excitement of war imperialism had passed, there was little enthusiasm for an Arab empire in either Britain or France – especially one that was going to cost money. If the Middle East’s partition was the high tide of empire, it was the tide that turned soonest, the imperial moment that was shortest.

Darwin, After Tamerlane, p. 387

It was for this reason that, in my interview with Jamarl Thomas, I compared the USA’s current dark time of brutalist expansionism to this brief high tide of the British Empire.

Violence, Empire and Decolonisation

“Decolonisation is always a violent phenomenon,” declared Frantz Fanon in The Wretched of the Earth after years of the Algerian War of Independence. He did not live to see an alternative, but his tract still inspires believers in armed resistance to settler colonialism worldwide.

But was Fanon’s decree a rationalisation of bitter revenge? Was it a militant’s rallying cry for others to sacrifice their lives for a national cause? Was it another poet-psychiatrist’s elaborate projection of shadows, not more defensible than the ethnic cleansing of Radovan Karadzic? Did Fanon succumb to mimicry of imperial Manichean violence, as Nietzsche warned?

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (1886)

Reading The Wretched of the Earth inspires many who identify as belonging to an ‘axis of resistance’ or anti-imperial struggle. But it does chill my blood. The text is haunted by the violence of Fanon’s colonial oppressors………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://jeffrich.substack.com/p/who-decides-what-is-a-just-war-imperial?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=247469&post_id=195185147&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

20 May 6.30 pm AEST.

A new Federal Police unit has been created which will impact on protesting against AUKUS.

The AUKUS AFP Command has been established under the Australian Federal Police (AFP), in conjunction with the Department of Defence.  The AUKUS AFP Command’s powers cover the security of AUKUS operations, extending to wider US military activity elsewhere.  Its activities are of considerable concern since among its roles is “Public Order Management” listing of “munitions” which include tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets and real firearms.

Is this the Australia we want for ourselves, our children and the world?

Since 2003 and 9/11 a raft of laws have been passed by successive Australian governments attacking our civil and democratic rights, including freedom of speech and political protest.  Some of these laws have been used against the environment movement.

More laws have been passed recently aimed at suppressing the huge upsurge of outrage against Israel’s genocide in Gaza, including draconian anti-protest laws in several states, and “hate laws” by the Federal Government.

More widely, protests are arising from concern with the huge diversion of public money for the AUKUS war pact and its nuclear submarines away from urgent social needs including the climate crisis.  Communities and environmentalists are concerned with nuclear exposures.  There is growing opposition to AUKUS embedding Australia in another US-led war, possibly a nuclear war.

These public concerns extend to the increasing US military footprint across Australia, enabled by the 2014 Force Posture Agreement.

Australian people have a proud history spanning 170 years of collectively on mass opposing and defying oppressive anti-democratic laws.  From the 1854 Eureka rebellion, the countless strikes by workers and their unions, against conscription and unjust wars, against the Vietnam and Iraq wars, and defending the environment.

This is a webinar you cannot afford to miss. BOOK HERE  

The outstanding line up of speakers (below) will be supported by short contributions from anti-AUKUS activists on the ground where AUKUS submarine activities are taking place or proposed/expected to take place.

Facilitator: Kelli Tranter

Ex-Sen.Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna, Arthur Rorris, Jorgen Doyle…………………………………………………………………… https://events.humanitix.com/the-dangerous-world-of-aukus-and-us-military-occupation