“But here is the problem: The government has not applied the same standard to Israeli dual nationals who may have committed war crimes.

Authorities in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, and Sri Lanka have ordered investigations into allegations of war crimes by their citizens or Israeli soldiers on their soil. Australia has done nothing.”

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To my wife — who taught me that silence is not neutrality. It is a choice.

I. The Evidence That Cannot Be Ignored

On 22 May 2026, a coalition of human rights organisations — Amnesty International Australia, the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN), and the Australia Muslim Advocacy Network (AMAN) — submitted a formal dossier to Australian Federal Police Commissioner Krissy Barrett and Attorney-General Michelle Rowland.

The submission contained a 140-page dossier prepared by the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians, detailing extensive allegations of genocide and war crimes against Israeli government and military figures including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, and former IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi.

The organisations urged the AFP to investigate “any Australian dual nationals alleged to have participated in hostilities in Gaza or related conduct potentially giving rise to offences under Australian law”.

Amnesty International’s Mohamed Duar was blunt: “Any Australian who has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide must be held to account and face justice”.

That was three days ago.

The government has not responded.

The silence is deafening.

II. The Arms Trade: Business as Usual

While the government refuses to investigate alleged war criminals on Australian soil, it continues to facilitate the weapons that make those crimes possible.

Australia’s defence export regime has faced repeated scrutiny over its approvals for arms exports to Israel. Under the Defence Trade Controls Act 2012, the government is required to deny export permits where there is a “clear risk” that the goods might be used to commit “serious violations of international humanitarian law”.

Yet permits continue to be approved. The government refuses to release detailed figures, citing commercial confidentiality. What we know comes from leaked documents and investigative reporting — including evidence that Australian-made components have found their way into Israeli military systems used in Gaza.

The pattern is consistent with global trends. Serbia’s arms exports to Israel surged from approximately €1.4 million in 2023 to tens of millions annually in 2025. NATO member Albania signed a secret contract worth hundreds of millions of euros with Elbit Systems, an Israeli defence company under investigation for allegedly bribing alliance officials, with the agreement’s costs and terms kept from the Albanian parliament.

Australia is not alone. But Australia is not off the hook.

The question is simple: Is Australia arming a state accused of genocide?

The government will not answer.

III. The Visa Paradox: War Criminals Welcome, Humanitarians Barred

The contradiction could not be starker.

On one hand, Australia has denied visas to Palestinian refugees and humanitarian workers seeking safety. In March 2026, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke granted visas to a troupe of female IDF soldiers taking a “recovery trip” to Melbourne. Israeli dual nationals who have served in the IDF — including those who documented their service “near the Gaza/Egypt border” — have entered and left Australia unchecked.

On the other hand, Australia has denied entry to Israeli political figures associated with anti-Palestinian rhetoric. Former minister Ayelet Shaked and MK Simcha Rothman were refused visas. The government has imposed sanctions on far-right Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, including travel bans.

But here is the problem: The government has not applied the same standard to Israeli dual nationals who may have committed war crimes.

Authorities in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, and Sri Lanka have ordered investigations into allegations of war crimes by their citizens or Israeli soldiers on their soil. Australia has done nothing.

In January 2026, the government ignored a request to prepare an arrest warrant for Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who toured Australia at the government’s invitation in early February — despite a UN Commission of Inquiry finding that Herzog incited genocide when he blamed “an entire nation” for the October 7 attack.

Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has introduced visa cancellation criteria based on “a test of character, not necessarily a test of criminality” and “inciting discord”. By his own criteria, Herzog fails the test. The government did not apply it.

Why does one standard apply to Israeli politicians and another to Israeli soldiers?

The government will not answer.

IV. The Flotilla: Humiliation on Video

On 21 May 2026, footage emerged of Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir taunting detained activists from the Global Sumud Flotilla — an international effort to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza and deliver aid.

The video showed Ben-Gvir waving an Israeli flag in front of bound activists kneeling face down in a tent. One woman was forced to the ground by masked officers after shouting “Free, free Palestine”.

Among the 430 detained activists were 11 Australians. They reported being denied food and water for days. One activist, Zack Schofield, stated: “Many of us haven’t eaten for days. We were denied water for two days. I have friends that were shocked with tasers, stun guns for extended periods of time just on entry to prison”.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong condemned Ben-Gvir’s actions as “shocking and unacceptable”. The government called in the Israeli ambassador. Wong directed DFAT to make representations.

But here is the problem: Condemnation is not consequence.

Greens Senator Nick McKim called for “the strongest possible response from our prime minister and our foreign minister — a far, far stronger response than they’ve delivered to date”.

None has come.

The activists were released and deported to Turkey. The Israeli minister who humiliated them faces no sanction from Australia beyond words.

When does condemnation become complicity?

The government will not answer.

V. The Royal Commission Contradiction

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has repeatedly rejected calls for a royal commission into antisemitism, arguing that royal commissions “achieve nothing” and become “divisive.”

In December 2025, following the Bondi Beach terrorist attack, the government rejected calls for a royal commission, with Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke arguing that a royal commission would “re-platform some of the worst statements and worst voices”. The government instead commissioned former ASIO boss Dennis Richardson to review the security ecosystem.

Yet when it comes to domestic violence — which killed 64 Australian women in 2024 alone — the same Prime Minister has also rejected royal commissions, stating that they “take too long” and “don’t deliver the urgent change needed”.

The inconsistency is instructive.

Royal commissions are a tool. The government deploys them when it wishes — as it did for aged care, disability, the robodebt scheme, and the management of police informants. It withholds them when the political cost of action exceeds the cost of inaction.

On antisemitism, the government has chosen a path of symbolic measures: an education taskforce, a “university report card,” funding for Monash University to expand training in “recognising antisemitism”. These are not nothing. But they are not accountability.

The Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, recommended the withholding of funding from universities found to have facilitated antisemitism. The government has not implemented this recommendation.

Why is antisemitism treated differently from other forms of hate?

The government will not answer.

VI. The Envoy and the Universities

The appointment of a Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism — a position with no equivalent for Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism, or anti-Arab hate — raises its own questions.

The Envoy’s remit includes monitoring “adoption of an appropriate definition of antisemitism” across universities. The “appropriate definition” is widely understood to be the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition — which includes as examples of antisemitism “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” and “applying double standards to Israel.”

Critics argue that this definition conflates criticism of Israeli government policy with antisemitism, effectively chilling legitimate political speech. Universities have been warned that funding may be withheld if they fail to adopt the definition and act against violations.

Whatever one thinks of the IHRA definition, the underlying question is: Why does the government believe it has the authority to dictate which definitions Australian universities must adopt?

Universities are independent institutions. Academic freedom is a core value of liberal democracy. The government’s approach — financial penalties for non-compliance — represents a significant intrusion into university governance.

The government has not applied this standard to any other form of discrimination or hate speech.

Why is antisemitism being treated as a special case requiring special powers?

The government will not answer.

VII. The Zionist Fraction: Who Speaks for Whom?

A crucial fact is consistently omitted from public discussion: Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews. And the Zionist position does not represent the entirety of Jewish opinion in Australia or anywhere else.

According to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, approximately 117,000 Jewish people live in Australia — about 0.4% of the population. There is no reliable data on what percentage actively support the Israeli government’s policies in Gaza, support a two-state solution, oppose Zionism altogether, or simply wish to be left out of the debate entirely.

Yet the government, in its public statements and policy responses, consistently conflates “antisemitism” with “criticism of Israel.” The Special Envoy’s mandate explicitly adopts a definition of antisemitism that includes certain forms of Israel criticism as examples of anti-Jewish hate.

This conflation serves a political purpose: it delegitimises legitimate debate about Israeli government policy, international law, and human rights. It equates questioning the actions of a foreign government with hating Jewish people. It collapses a complex spectrum of opinion into a binary: with us or against us.

Who decided that the Zionist position speaks for all Jews? And on what authority?

The government will not answer.

VIII. The Humanitarians vs. The State of Israel

The mistreatment of the Samud flotilla activists — 11 Australian citizens detained at gunpoint in international waters, denied food and water, humiliated by a government minister on video — raises the most fundamental question of all: What is the Australian government prepared to do to protect its citizens from a foreign power?

The answer, so far, is not much.

Condemnation. Diplomatic representations. A phone call. A statement.

No sanctions. No travel bans. No freezing of defence exports. No arrest warrants for Israeli officials who may have committed crimes against Australian citizens.

Compare this to the government’s response to other human rights violations. When Russia invaded Ukraine, Australia imposed sanctions, sent military aid, and expelled diplomats. When China detained Australian citizens, the government made public protests and pursued diplomatic channels.

When Israel detains Australian citizens at gunpoint and a government minister humiliates them on video, Australia condemns — and moves on.

Why is Israel treated differently from other nations?

The government will not answer.

IX. The Empirical Record

The government’s silence is not an absence of information. It is a choice made in the presence of overwhelming evidence.

On arms exports: The government refuses to disclose approvals for military exports to Israel, citing commercial confidentiality. It will not confirm or deny whether Australian-made components have been used in weapons deployed in Gaza.

On war crimes investigations: The government has not responded to the 22 May 2026 submission from human rights organisations. It has not confirmed whether the AFP is investigating any Australian dual nationals who served in the IDF. It has not explained why Israel’s President was granted a visa and a red-carpet welcome despite a UN finding of incitement to genocide.

On the flotilla: The government condemned Ben-Gvir’s actions but has not imposed sanctions beyond those already in place. It has not explained why Australian citizens were left to the mercy of a foreign power for days.

On royal commissions: The government has rejected a royal commission into antisemitism while implementing selective measures against universities. It has not explained why antisemitism deserves a Special Envoy and a “university report card” while other forms of hate do not.

On the definition of antisemitism: The government has adopted a definition that conflates Israel criticism with anti-Jewish hate, without consulting the full spectrum of Jewish opinion in Australia. It has not explained its authority to dictate definitions to independent universities.

X. The Question the Government Will Not Answer

The pattern is consistent. The silence is deliberate. And the question is unavoidable:

Why does the Albanese government treat the State of Israel differently from every other nation?

Not tougher — differently.

Weaker sanctions. Fewer consequences. More silence. More diplomacy. More measured statements. More nothing.

The government will say it is committed to a two-state solution. It will say it supports Israel’s right to exist. It will say it condemns antisemitism. These are not answers. These are evasions.

The question is not about Israel’s right to exist. It is about Australia’s obligation to uphold international law, protect its citizens, and apply the same standards to all nations equally.

The government will not answer. Because the answer would require it to admit what is becoming increasingly clear to anyone who is paying attention:

Australia has abandoned its principles for the sake of an alliance.

Not a military alliance — Australia has no mutual defence treaty with Israel.

An ideological alliance. With the Zionist project. With a foreign government’s definition of antisemitism. With the conflation of criticism with hate.

And in so doing, Australia has abandoned its own citizens — the humanitarians, the academics, the journalists, the ordinary people who ask only that the law be applied equally and that silence not be mistaken for neutrality.

XI. Conclusion

The evidence is on the table. The dossier has been submitted. The activists have been humiliated. The arms continue to flow. The visas continue to be granted — to soldiers, not to survivors.

And the government continues to be silent.

Not because it does not know.

Because it chooses not to act.

Silence is not neutrality. Silence is a choice. And in the face of genocide — in the face of war crimes, in the face of Australian citizens detained at gunpoint, in the face of a government minister taunting bound prisoners on video — silence is complicity.

The Albanese government will not answer the questions we have raised.

But that does not mean the questions go away.

They remain. On the table. In the dossier. In the eyes of the activists who were denied water for two days. In the hearts of the Palestinians who cannot get a visa while IDF soldiers come to Melbourne on holiday.

The questions remain.

And one day, they will demand an answer.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Deepcut News. (2026, May 22). AFP urged to investigate IDF soldiers in Australia.

2. The Guardian Australia. (2024). Defence export approvals to Israel under scrutiny.

3. Türkiye Today. (2026, March 18). When trade becomes complicity: Serbia’s arms trade with Israel.

4. SOT News. (2026, April 27). How KAYO signed secret contracts with Elbit Systems.

5. Pearls and Irritations. (2026, January 8). Minister for Home Affairs Tony Burke should reject a visa application for Israeli President Herzog.

6. PerthNow. (2026, May 21). ‘Shocking and unacceptable’: Australia condemns Israel minister’s abuse of Palestine activists.

7. The New Daily. (2026, May 22). Israel releases flotilla activists after ‘disgraceful’ treatment.

8. X (formerly Twitter). (2026, May 21). Penny Wong post.

9. China.org.cn. (2026, May 21). Australian FM condemns Israel’s “shocking” treatment of Gaza flotilla activists.

10. Brisbane Times. (2025, December 29). Labor has its reasons for denying a royal commission. But its latest doesn’t land.

11. The Guardian Australia. (2024). Domestic violence deaths in Australia.

12. Times Higher Education. (2025, December 18). Universities judged on antisemitism response after Bondi attack.

13. Executive Council of Australian Jewry. (2025). Jewish population estimates.