“The shield works because we let it. The only cure is to stop being afraid of the performance.” 

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To my wife — who knows the difference between theatrics and the truth when it comes to feelings.

I. The Performance of Injury

You mention the genocide. The thousands of dead children in Gaza. The systematic destruction of a population’s ability to survive.

The response from certain quarters is not a denial. It is not an engagement with the evidence. It is not a moment of silence for the dead.

It is: “You hurt my feelings.”

This is not feeling. This is strategy.

The same strategy used by the stick insects in suits when you question their contracts. The same strategy used by the petrochemical companies when you mention hemp. The same strategy used by the political class when you remind them they are not accountable.

“You hurt my feelings” is a shield.

Not against swords — against truth.

II. The Shield That Pays: $176 Million and Counting

On 22 April 2026, the Department of Home Affairs awarded the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) a grant of $112.2 million for the purpose of “enhancing security for Jewish communities”.

This was not an isolated transaction. Combined with an earlier grant awarded in November 2023 under the Enhancing Security for Jewish Communities Program — initially valued at $27.5 million, since increased to $63.8 million — and a separate $103,459 security infrastructure grant awarded in 2021, total Commonwealth funding awarded to ECAJ-linked entities since 2021 exceeds $176 million.

The 2026–27 Federal Budget added further funding: $102 million over four years from 2025–26 to ECAJ for “enhanced security for the Jewish community,” plus an additional $22 million over three years from the Confiscated Assets Account established under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

In response to the December 14, 2025, Bondi terror attack — in which 15 people were killed during a Chanukah celebration — the government allocated more than $600 million in federal budget funding.

The grants to ECAJ were awarded not to an ACNC-registered charity or ASIC-registered company, but to an incorporated association registered in the ACT.

According to ACT regulatory requirements, incorporated associations are not required to publicly lodge audited financial statements with the territory government.

The money trail leads to an obscure entity and, for all practical purposes, runs dry.

“I asked the Department of Home Affairs why the grants were awarded to this structure rather than an entity subject to public financial disclosure. Their response invoked the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles but did not answer the question.”

III. The Special Envoy: From Lobbyist to Government Insider

Former ECAJ president Jillian Segal AO was appointed Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism in July 2024.

Cabinet documents released under FOI reveal the appointment was made without an open recruitment process. The Prime Minister’s department recommended Segal based on her “longstanding reputation as an advocate for the NSW Jewish community” and her role as “former President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and as Chair of the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce”.

The Special Envoy role was initially budgeted at $4 million over two years. This was quietly expanded to $16.9 million over three years, with the appointment extended from one year to three years and additional support staff approved.

The Terms of Reference state that the Special Envoy will “provide advice to inform policy development, legislative amendments, campaigns and programs to assist in combatting Antisemitism”.

An ECAJ insider — appointed by a government that had just awarded ECAJ tens of millions in grants — is now advising that same government on policy, legislation, and funding priorities.

This is not a conspiracy. This is structural capture.

IV. The Double Standard: Charities, International Law, and Tax Deductions

While ECAJ receives hundreds of millions in government grants, the Albanese government has refused to act against Australian charities funnelling tax-deductible donations to projects supporting Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank — which are illegal under international law — and to initiatives supporting IDF soldiers.

Finance Minister Katy Gallagher told the Senate that charities do not need to comply with international law. The government rejected a Greens amendment that would explicitly bar organisations from receiving deductible gift recipient status if they are found to have supported an “illegal occupation”.

The scale of the funding is significant. Michael West Media investigations have identified:

· Jewish National Fund Australia has remitted more than $125 million to Israel since 2009

· United Israel Appeal Refugee Relief Fund has transferred approximately $376 million since 2013 via Keren Hayesod, with a portion of these funds used for settlement expansion and IDF-linked programs 

At the UIA Victoria AGM in November 2025, President David Slade told members: “We are the only organisation in Australia raising funds for Israel that holds a seat at every table of decision-making authority mandated to rebuild the country from the north to the south”.

“We are proud that every dollar we distribute is aligned with Israel’s national priorities.”

The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission received 896 complaints relating to 88 charities in connection with the Israel-Gaza conflict between October 2023 and December 2025.

Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi was direct: “The fact that people are sending money to support the war crimes of the Israeli military and to expand illegal, violent settlements in the West Bank is bad enough, but that Australian taxpayers are subsidising these settlements is completely outrageous”.

The government’s position, as articulated by Minister Gallagher, is that existing frameworks prohibit unlawful conduct under Australian law — but they do not extend to conduct under international law.

This is not a legal technicality. It is a choice.

The same government that has appointed a Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism — and funded her office to the tune of $16.9 million — refuses to act against charities funding the very military accused of genocide by the UN Commission of Inquiry.

V. The Bondi Attack: A Tragedy Weaponised

“The December 14, 2025, Bondi terror attack was a genuine tragedy. Fifteen people killed. A community traumatised. Two gunmen, father and son, targeted a Hanukkah celebration.

“The response has been a $600 million funding commitment — including $102 million to ECAJ, $68.8 million to the AFP, $42.9 million for mental health support, $80 million for counterterrorism, $32.6 million for public awareness campaigns, and more than $130 million for a Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.

“But the attack was not perpetrated by an organised, ideologically coherent antisemitic network. The perpetrators, Sajid and Naveed Akram, had a history of extremist rhetoric. However, the systemic failures that enabled the attack — including gaps in counterterrorism monitoring, firearms access, and intelligence sharing — remain largely unaddressed.

“The government’s response has focused overwhelmingly on antisemitism as a cultural and political problem, rather than addressing the specific operational failures that allowed two men to acquire weapons and carry out an attack on a crowded beach.

“The underlying failures in mental health care, firearms licensing, intelligence coordination, and counterterrorism resourcing remain largely unaddressed. The question is not whether antisemitism played a role — it did. The question is whether the government’s response addresses the actual causes of the attack, or merely funds the organisations best positioned to claim injury.”

VI. The Other Victims: 78 Women and Counting

While the government has found $600 million for the antisemitism response, it has been notably less forthcoming on other forms of violence.

Between October 2023 and December 2025, the ACNC received 896 complaints about charities linked to the Israel-Gaza conflict. The government’s response: refer them to the ACNC.

On domestic violence, the numbers are stark.

In the 2025 calendar year, 78 women were killed by violence in Australia — approximately one and a half women every week.

Since the beginning of 2026, another 12 women have already been murdered.

The Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission’s 2025 annual report estimates that 2.8 million Australians have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15. One in every four women in this country. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are 33 times more likely than other Australian women to be hospitalised due to family violence and seven times more likely to be homicide victims.

The government has invested $4 billion since 2022 in the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children — the largest investment by any government in Australia’s history.

But compare the response.

When 15 people were killed in a single terrorist attack, the government found $600 million within months — including $130 million for a Royal Commission.

When 78 women were killed over the course of a year — and when the government knows that domestic violence kills on average one woman every nine days — the Prime Minister has rejected calls for a Royal Commission, arguing that they “take too long” and “don’t deliver the urgent change needed.”

The inconsistency is instructive.

Some lives are worth a Royal Commission. Others are worth a press release.

The government will not explain the difference.

VII. The Economics of Outrage

Why does the Hasbara model work?

Because it is disciplined. And discipline, in a world that confuses volume with validity, is a superpower.

Every criticism of Israeli government policy is framed as antisemitism. Every piece of evidence is met with a performance of injury. Every question about the hundreds of millions flowing to an incorporated association with no public financial reporting is met with silence — or with the invocation of “security.”

The shield works because it has been tested. The political class in Washington, Canberra, London, and Berlin has learned that questioning Israel is political suicide — not because the arguments are weak, but because the feelings will be deployed.

Professionally. Strategically. Relentlessly.

And it pays off.

Billions in military aid. Diplomatic cover at the United Nations. A media environment that repeats the talking points without question. Hundreds of millions in government grants to organisations that do not have to account for how the money is spent.

Not because the feelings are real — they are not. Because the performance is disciplined.

The same strategy is used by the stick insects in suits when you question their contracts. The same strategy is used by the petrochemical companies when you mention hemp. The same strategy is used by the political class when you remind them, they are accountable.

“You hurt my feelings” is the universal shield.

And it works because the media is afraid. Because the political class is afraid. Because questioning the shield invites the shield to be turned on you.

The shield is not magic. It is expensive.

And Australian taxpayers are paying for it.

VIII. What Would a Consistent Response Look Like?

Imagine, for a moment, a government that applied the same standards to all forms of hate, all forms of violence, all forms of foreign interference.

· A Royal Commission into domestic violence — because 78 women killed in a year is also a national emergency.

· A Special Envoy for Islamophobia appointed at the same time, with the same budget, the same access — not as an afterthought.

· A requirement that all organisations receiving Commonwealth grants be subject to public financial reporting — regardless of whether they are incorporated associations or registered charities.

· A prohibition on tax-deductible donations to organisations that support illegal occupations — whether in the West Bank or elsewhere.

· A consistent definition of hate speech that protects all communities equally — not one that privileges the feelings of one group over the lives of another.

This is not radical. It is consistent.

But consistency is not the goal.

The goal is control.

Control of the narrative. Control of the funding. Control of the definition of who is a victim and who is a perpetrator.

And the shield — “you hurt my feelings” — is the mechanism of that control.

IX. The Question the Government Will Not Answer

The evidence is on the table.

· $176 million to an incorporated association that does not publicly account for its spending.

· A Special Envoy appointed from the leadership of that association, with a $16.9 million budget.

· $600 million in response to a terrorist attack perpetrated by a mentally ill man — with the underlying systemic failures unaddressed.

· Refusal to act against charities funding illegal settlements and IDF soldiers, while Palestinian refugees are denied visas.

· A Royal Commission for antisemitism, but not for the 78 women killed last year.

The question is not whether the government is capable of acting. It is acting.

The question is who it acts for.

And the answer, from the evidence, is clear.

The government acts for those who have learned to weaponise their feelings.

Those who have not — the dead women, the starving children, the refugees without visas — are invisible.

Not because their suffering is less real.

Because they have no shield.

X. Conclusion

The Hasbara model is not about feelings.

It is about power.

The power to frame the narrative. The power to direct funding. The power to define who is a victim and who is a perpetrator. The power to shield allies from accountability while demanding accountability from enemies.

“You hurt my feelings” is not a cry of pain. It is a strategy.

And it has paid off.

Billions in military aid. Diplomatic cover. Hundreds of millions in government grants. A Special Envoy with access to the highest levels of government. A Royal Commission with a $130 million budget.

Not because the feelings are real — they are not.

Because the performance is disciplined.

And discipline, in a world that confuses volume with validity, is a superpower.

But the shield is not invincible.

It can be seen.

And once seen, it can be named.

The question is not whether the government will answer. It will not.

The question is whether the Australian people will continue to pay for the shield — or demand to know what lies behind it.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Home Affairs Measures No. 3) Regulations 2026, Federal Register of Legislation 

2. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, FOI Release: Special Envoys to Combat Antisemitism and Islamophobia, 2024 

3. Stephanie Tran, “Australian charities funding Israel’s illegal settlements ‘untouchable’, says Labor govt,” Asia Pacific Report / Michael West Media, 20 March 2026 

4. “Gun ‘red flag’ before Bondi massacre,” The West Australian, 5 February 2026 

5. House of Representatives debates, Statements on Significant Matters — Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, 4 March 2026 

6. Stephanie Tran, “Money trail leads to obscure Israel lobby entity, then runs dry,” Michael West Media, 23 May 2026 

7. “Peak Jewish body says $600 million federal budget response to antisemitic Bondi terror attack ‘modest’,” ABC News, 13 May 2026 

8. “Budget delivers extra $22 million for Jewish security,” The Australian Jewish News, 13 May 2026 

9. Joint media release with Anthony Albanese MP, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Ministers for the Department of Home Affairs, 9 July 2024 

10. Stephanie Tran, “United Israel Appeal — Australian charity channels tax free donations direct to IDF soldiers,” Asia Pacific Report / Michael West Media, 29 January 2026 

The shield works because we let it. The only cure is to stop being afraid of the performance.