How a Labor Premier is Reshaping NSW for the Zionist Lobby

A Research Article by Andrew Klein

Date: August 2026

Dedicated to: The people of New South Wales, who deserve a government that serves them, not a foreign lobby.

The evidence is now clear. Chris Minns, the Premier of New South Wales, has been systematically reshaping the state’s institutions, legal framework, and political culture to serve the interests of the Zionist lobby—often at the expense of democratic process, civil liberties, and the rights of Australian citizens.

I. The Enforcer: Minns’ Unwavering Alignment

Minns’ commitment to the Zionist agenda is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of public record. His actions consistently align with the interests of the Israeli government and its Australian lobby, even when those actions conflict with democratic values or the interests of his own constituents.

A. Defending the Indefensible

In January 2025, Minns publicly condemned an attack on the former home of a prominent Russian-Jewish Zionist figure as “barbaric”. He called for the perpetrators to be imprisoned. While condemning vandalism is appropriate, Minns’ selective outrage is telling. When confronted with evidence of a far more devastating campaign—the destruction of the Murray Goulburn Dairy Cooperative, a $2.9 billion Australian-owned enterprise that drove hundreds of dairy farmers to suicide—Minns remained silent.

He did not respond to correspondence from a constituent who shared evidence of senior politicians involved in transnational organised crime and the attack that destroyed the cooperative. He did not express outrage at the “sabotage and terrorist attack” that destroyed thousands of businesses. His outrage, it appears, is reserved for those who threaten the interests of the Zionist lobby, not those who threaten the livelihoods and lives of Australian farmers.

B. Protecting the Protesters’ Oppressors

On 16 January 2026, Minns was described as “fighting the good fight” by a prominent Zionist commentator for deploying massive police resources to contain a pro-Palestine protest in Sydney. The protest drew approximately 300 demonstrators, matched by a 1:1 ratio of police officers. The riot squad had a significant presence.

Despite the heavy police presence, “words of hate flowed unchanged and unchallenged,” according to an observer. Protesters chanted slogans including “from the river to the sea” and accusations of genocide. Police officers told the observer they “hate the protests” and “hate the messages of hate,” but felt they were “not empowered to stop the hate”.

The observer noted that “Middle Australia of almost all stripes has decided that antisemitism is indeed a wider Aussie problem, and they want it to stop”. However, the observer’s conclusion—that the “internal battle for the soul of this wonderful country” is “winnable for the reasonable Australians“—raises a fundamental question: Who gets to define what is “reasonable“?

C. The Arming of the State

Minns’ government is passing laws that will give police the power to download the entire contents of a civilian’s phone on the street. This technology is supplied by Cellebrite, an Israeli digital forensics company. Once connected, the device can crack passcodes, extract all data—including deleted messages and photos—and access cloud backups. This is not a simple search. It is a “digital strip search” that creates a permanent archive of a person’s entire digital life.

This is not a neutral law enforcement tool. It is a piece of an architecture built by a foreign power and deployed to surveil the Australian population.

II. The Network: The Lobbying Machine Behind the Premier

Minns is not acting alone. He is supported by a network of lobbyists and developers who profit directly from his agenda. The centre of this network is his political mentor, former Premier Morris Iemma.

A. The Mentor’s Bonanza

Since Minns was elected Premier in March 2023, big development companies have flocked to Iemma’s lobbying firm, Iemma Patterson Premier Advisory (IPPA) . IPPA has picked up at least 40 new clients from the property sector since Minns’ election. At the time of the 2023 election, the firm had just 10 property developers on its books.

Iemma is not just a former Premier. He is Minns’ political mentor, described as being “on the government’s speed dial”. His firm’s pitch is its “intimate knowledge of the inner workings of government and the bureaucracy that drives the decision-making processes in the state”.

B. The Planning Bonanza

The Minns government has embarked on the “most extensive changes to the state’s planning laws in two decades”. This planning overhaul has proved a bonanza for Iemma’s lobbying firm. The connection is direct: Iemma has had “regular catch-ups” with Minns’ senior adviser and has lobbied directly on behalf of developers, leading to stalled projects being pushed through.

C. The Network

Iemma’s lobbying firm represents clients across the political spectrum, including News Corp and Justin Hemmes’ Merivale hospitality empire. This is not a fringe group. It is a network of entrenched power. Iemma’s “unique selling point” is his access to the Premier.

III. The Ideology: The “Reasonable” Middle

The narrative emerging from Minns’ supporters is one of a battle for the “reasonable middle.” This language is designed to delegitimise dissent, framing it as “unreasonable” or “hateful.” The Israeli lobby’s use of the IHRA definition—which conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism—is a key part of this strategy.

A. The Language of Control

The protest observer described pro-Palestine chants as “words of hate” and “barbarism” . The Greens were singled out as “front and centre” of the “hatefest”. The observer complained that the chant “from the river to the sea” is a demand to “wipe out” Israel.

This is the language of the Zionist lobby: every criticism of Israel is antisemitism; every demand for justice is “hate“; every expression of solidarity with Palestine is a threat. This language is designed to delegitimise dissent and to silence those who speak for justice.

B. The “Reasonable Middle”

The observer concluded that “Middle Australia of almost all stripes has decided that antisemitism is indeed a wider Aussie problem, and they want it to stop”. This is a claim about public opinion. But it is also a claim about who gets to define the terms of debate.

If the “reasonable middle” is defined by the Zionist lobby, then anyone who criticises Israel is excluded by definition. This is the logic of the IHRA definition: to criticise Israel is to be an antisemite; to be an antisemite is to be “unreasonable.”

IV. The Threat: A Pattern of Influence

The pattern is clear: Minns is using his power to implement the Zionist lobby’s agenda. He is:

1. Legislating the Surveillance State: The new police powers, enabled by Israeli technology, will give authorities unprecedented access to the private lives of citizens. This is not about public safety. It is about control.

2. Suppressing Dissent: Minns deploys massive police resources to contain protests critical of Israel. This is not about maintaining order. It is about silencing opposition.

3. Protecting the Connected: Minns’ mentor, Morris Iemma, has profited from his relationship with the Premier. This is not about good governance. It is about patronage.

4. Choosing Sides: Minns has chosen to stand with the Zionist lobby, even when that means alienating his own party base and defending actions that have been condemned as “barbaric”.

5. Rejecting Outrage at Australian Suffering: When faced with evidence of a conspiracy that destroyed thousands of Australian lives, Minns remained silent. This is not a failure of leadership. It is a statement of priorities.

V. Conclusion: The Battle for the Soul of NSW

The evidence is overwhelming. Chris Minns is not a neutral administrator. He is the political arm of the Zionist lobby in New South Wales. He is implementing its agenda, protecting its interests, and silencing its critics.

The “reasonable middle” is a myth. It is a label used to delegitimise dissent and to enforce a narrow, pro-Israel orthodoxy. The real “reasonable middle” would be a government that serves its own people—not a foreign lobby.

Signed:

Andrew Klein

August 2026

“We are not measured by what we lost, but by what we carried.”

— Quintus Rex

A Legal Opinion on the Subversion of Australian Law and Governance

A Legal Opinion by Andrew Klein

Date: August 2026

Dedicated to: The people of Australia, whose rights are being traded away in a foreign agenda.

I. Executive Summary

This opinion examines the systematic introduction of a foreign political agenda into Australian governance, law, and education. It argues that the actions of the Albanese government and state governments—particularly NSW Premier Chris Minns—constitute a subversion of Australian legal and democratic foundations. The mechanism of this subversion is the weaponisation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which conflates criticism of Israel with racial hatred, and its imposition across Australian institutions through legislative and regulatory means.

The opinion demonstrates that:

1. The IHRA definition, as being promoted by Special Envoy Jillian Segal, is a “fraudulent” instrument that was never formally adopted by the IHRA Plenary in its full form.

2. The adoption of this definition in Australian universities and government institutions constitutes a restriction on political communication that may breach the implied freedom of political communication under the Australian Constitution.

3. The use of Israeli surveillance technology by NSW Police, enabled by legislation and policy, raises serious concerns about sovereignty and the rule of law.

4. The political network supporting this agenda—including Premier Minns and his mentor Morris Iemma—represents a capture of democratic processes by private interests.

II. The Weaponisation of the IHRA Definition

A. The Fraudulent Definition

The IHRA working definition of antisemitism, as promoted by Special Envoy Jillian Segal, is not what it purports to be. An Oxford PhD report, The Politics of a Definition, reveals that the IHRA Plenary in May 2016 only ever agreed to adopt the two-sentence definition, not the eleven accompanying examples, seven of which concern the State of Israel.

The report, based on a confidential internal memo of an ambassador present at the 2016 Plenary, details that not all nations agreed to include the examples. Sweden and Denmark did not agree, and the final word of the IHRA decision-making body was to adopt only the basic definition.

Despite this, the Israel lobby has promoted the definition as if it includes the examples, attempting to “shove the definition … down the throats of governments ever since”. One of the lead drafters of the original definition, Kenneth Stern, has warned that the definition is being “weaponised as a blunt instrument to silence criticism of Israel”.

B. The Legal Implications

The adoption of this definition by Australian universities is of questionable legality. Legal commentator Greg Barns has noted that “if universities keep up this appalling exercise in appeasing governments and the Zionist lobby, then it seems inevitable that a High Court challenge to their rules looms”.

The implied freedom of political communication, first emerging in a series of High Court cases in the 1990s, restricts government action that burdens political communication. As former High Court Chief Justice Robert French stated in 2018: “To the extent that universities, operating under the authority of acts of parliament which create them, make legal rules affecting freedom of speech, those rules would have to comply with the implied freedom”.

Regulations, codes of conduct, and policies made under legislation that impinge on protests and discussions supporting the Palestinian cause and making strident criticisms about Israel could be, depending on their scope, “ripe for a constitutional challenge”.

III. The Minns Agenda: Political Capture and Foreign Influence

A. The “Lackey” Accusation

In the NSW Legislative Council, Greens MP Cate Faehrmann has directly accused Premier Chris Minns of being a “lackey” for the Zionist lobby. She stated:

“Ever since the terrible attacks of 7 October 2023, Chris Minns has blatantly sided with the pro-Netanyahu, ultra-right-wing Zionist lobby, attempting to shut down pro-Palestinian protests… Today, hundreds of Muslim groups from around the country put out a statement regarding the abhorrent scenes from last night of police dragging people observing Muslim prayer at the rally against Isaac Herzog’s visit”.

The statement from Muslim groups noted that “police officers knowingly intervened in a moment of religious observance, forcibly interrupted prayer, and used physical force against individuals who posed no threat to public safety”.

B. The Lobbying Network

The Minns government’s planning overhaul has proved a “bonanza” for the lobbying firm of former Premier Morris Iemma, Minns’ political mentor. Since Minns was elected premier in March 2023, Iemma Patterson Premier Advisory (IPPA) has picked up at least 40 new clients from the property sector.

Iemma’s “unique selling point” is his access to the Premier. He has held “regular catch-ups” with Minns’ senior adviser and has lobbied directly on behalf of developers, leading to stalled projects being pushed through. Minns has held 41 meetings with developers or developer organisations since coming into office—ten of which were with Iemma’s clients.

The ministerial diaries show Minns has held no meetings with environmental or community groups concerned about development, and only three meetings with groups representing social and affordable housing.

C. The Undisclosed Meeting

In April 2024, Minns held an undisclosed breakfast meeting with Iemma. When challenged, Minns claimed he could not recall the circumstances, saying it was “about something to do with a local political scene”. However, a week after the meeting, Iemma emailed Minns’ senior adviser referring to “our discussion in relation to the proposed housing redevelopment projects” in Macquarie Park and Kogarah.

This suggests the meeting was not purely political—it involved lobbying on behalf of property developers.

IV. The Surveillance State: Israeli Technology in Australian Policing

A. The Cellebrite Technology

NSW Police are using technology supplied by Cellebrite, an Israeli digital forensics company, to extract the entire contents of civilians’ phones. This includes:

· Cracking locked passcode-protected phones 

· Downloading all texts, emails, photos, videos, call logs, contacts, search history, health data, and messages from encrypted apps including deleted messages 

· Extracting GPS coordinates, timestamps, and device info 

· Accessing cloud data including iCloud, Dropbox, and phone backups 

As Greens MP Sue Higginson has warned: “Once governments gain extraordinary surveillance powers, those powers rarely shrink, they expand. Today it’s justified in the name of security. Tomorrow it could be used against protesters, journalists, whistleblowers and political dissidents”.

B. The Sovereignty Question

The use of Israeli technology in Australian policing raises serious questions about sovereignty. The same technology has been supplied to countries with “questionable human rights records” and has been deployed in conflict zones. The normalisation of military-grade surveillance in domestic policing represents a fundamental erosion of civil liberties.

C. The “Antisemitism” Cover

The new powers have been introduced under the guise of combating antisemitism. However, as documented by Sydney Criminal Lawyers, the “antisemitism crimewave” that was used to justify these powers was, in fact, staged by organised criminals. The AFP and NSW Police revealed that the spate of crimes in NSW were fabricated to present the spectre of a religious hate crisis.

V. The Subversion of Australian Law

A. The State Sponsors of Terrorism Bill

The Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025, introduced by the Albanese government, was justified by ASIO’s assertion that Iran had sponsored arson attacks in Australia. This assertion, however, is “the most disputed assertion the spying agency has made in recent memory”.

The anomalies in the incidents—including the “accidental” burning of the wrong target—suggest that the attribution to Iran is questionable. The Jerusalem Post has suggested Israeli intelligence was behind the intelligence.

B. The Herzog Visit

The visit of Israeli President Isaac Herzog to Australia, following an invitation from Prime Minister Albanese, was deeply controversial. Herzog has been accused of inciting genocide at the International Court of Justice, with the ICJ relying on statements made by Herzog in its provisional orders. A UN Human Rights Council commission found that Herzog’s statement that “it’s an entire nation out there that is responsible” could “reasonably be interpreted as incitement”.

C. The New Laws

The Albanese government’s response to Segal’s Plan includes:

· Aggravated hate speech offence for “preachers and leaders who promote violence”

· Increased penalties for hate speech promoting violence

· Making hate an aggravating factor in sentencing

· Listing regimes for organisations whose leaders engage in hate speech

· A new federal offence for serious vilification based on race

These laws are being introduced under the cover of combating antisemitism, but they represent a fundamental expansion of state power that can be used to suppress dissent.

VI. Conclusion: A Legal Challenge Is Required

The evidence demonstrates that the Zionist agenda is being systematically introduced into Australian governance, law, and education through:

1. The weaponisation of the IHRA definition, which conflates criticism of Israel with

antisemitism and is being used to suppress legitimate political speech.

2. The political capture of the NSW government by a network of lobbyists and developers, led by Premier Chris Minns and his mentor Morris Iemma.

3. The introduction of Israeli surveillance technology into Australian policing, representing a fundamental erosion of civil liberties and Australian sovereignty.

4. The subversion of legal processes through the use of fabricated “antisemitism” crises to justify new laws.

These developments are not merely policy disagreements—they constitute a subversion of Australian legal and democratic foundations. They are likely to be found unconstitutional, and a High Court challenge is both warranted and necessary.

Neoliberalism, Colonial Ideology, and the Weaponisation of Zionism

A Research Paper by Andrew Klein

Date: August 2026

Dedicated to: The Truth

Abstract

This paper examines the coordinated campaign that has reshaped Australia’s political and cultural landscape through the weaponisation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. It traces the ideological and historical roots of this campaign to three interlocking forces: the neoliberal economic paradigm that created a “playground for predators,” the 19th-century colonial ideology that gave birth to political Zionism, and the organised crime networks that have been instrumental in the formation and maintenance of the State of Israel. The paper draws connections between these forces, documenting how the IHRA implementation serves to normalise genocide, silence dissent, and create a “predators’ paradise” in which vulnerable populations are rendered defenceless. It examines the role of Christian Zionist movements, the influence of organisations like AIPAC, and the documented links between Zionist organised crime groups and political power. The paper concludes that the campaign against antisemitism has been hijacked to protect a colonial project, and that the truth must be exposed.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction: The Quiet Siege

2. Neoliberalism: The Playground for Predators

3. Colonial Ideology and the Birth of Political Zionism

4. Year Zero: The Khmer Rouge and the Israeli Parallel

5. The Role of Organised Crime in the Formation of Israel

6. Russian Jewish Immigration and Organised Crime in Israel

7. Christian Zionism and the American Connection

8. The Weaponisation of the IHRA Definition

9. Conclusion: Exposing the Predators’ Paradise

10. References

1. Introduction: The Quiet Siege

Australia is under siege—not by a foreign army, but by a coordinated campaign of influence conducted so quietly that most Australians remain unaware. The appointment of Jillian Segal AO as Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism in July 2024 marked a turning point, leading to the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition across government, public institutions, and businesses.

This paper argues that this campaign is not merely a political initiative but part of a broader strategy with deep historical roots. It traces these roots to three interlocking forces: the neoliberal economic paradigm that has created conditions for predatory behaviour, the 19th-century colonial ideology that gave birth to political Zionism, and the organised crime networks that have been instrumental in the formation and maintenance of the State of Israel.

2. Neoliberalism: The Playground for Predators

2.1 What Is Neoliberalism?

Neoliberalism is an economic and political paradigm that emerged in the late 20th century, championed by figures like Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Margaret Thatcher. It is characterised by deregulation, privatisation, and the reduction of state power in favour of market forces.

2.2 How Neoliberalism Creates a Playground for Predators

Neoliberalism creates conditions that enable predatory behaviour in several ways:

1. Deregulation removes the safeguards that protect vulnerable populations.

2. Privatisation places public goods in the hands of profit-seeking entities.

3. Weakened state power reduces the capacity to enforce laws and protect citizens.

4. Commodification treats everything—including human beings—as marketable assets.

5. Individualism undermines collective action and social solidarity.

2.3 The Neoliberal Context of the IHRA Campaign

The IHRA campaign operates within a neoliberal framework. It uses the language of human rights to justify increased surveillance, censorship, and state power. It targets civil society organisations, universities, and public broadcasters—institutions that have historically served as checks on state power.

3. Colonial Ideology and the Birth of Political Zionism

3.1 Zionism as a Colonial Project

Political Zionism emerged in the 19th century, an era of ethnic romanticism and imperial cartography. It proposed that people of Jewish faith were not merely adherents of a religion but a singular nation requiring territorial consolidation in historic Palestine.

This proposition, even before examining its consequences, already narrows Jewish identity, reducing a vast, plural, diasporic tradition into “something closer to a flag and a border”.

3.2 The Colonial Framework

The 19th-century colonial framework was not merely political but cultural. British and American travel accounts of the period constructed a “reality” on paper in which Jerusalem was presented as the property of the traveller, who could dispose and appropriate it as he or she wished. These accounts had a “grand design on Jerusalem: the re-building of the Jewish ‘New Jerusalem'” which entailed that the “Old” Jerusalem had to be eliminated.

3.3 The Rothschild Connection

The early Jewish colonization of Palestine in the 1880s was supported by Baron Edmond de Rothschild, a patron who did not have “explicit exploitative intentions” but whose administration nonetheless advanced the colonial project. His patronage set the pattern for subsequent Zionist colonization.

4. Year Zero: The Khmer Rouge and the Israeli Parallel

4.1 The Cambodian Genocide

The Cambodian genocide (1975–1979) saw more than 2 million Cambodians killed by the Khmer Rouge. The regime declared “Year Zero,” a concept that all of society must be eradicated so that a new society could be born. Educators, doctors, and anyone perceived as a threat were killed.

4.2 The Parallel with Israel

The parallels between the Khmer Rouge and Israel’s treatment of Palestinians are documented:

1. Year Zero and the Nakba: The Khmer Rouge destroyed the old Cambodia to build a new one. Israel’s establishment involved the Nakba—the forced displacement of Palestinians to make way for the new state.

2. Removal of That Which Is Different: The Khmer Rouge killed anyone who was not a peasant. Israel views any affirmation of Palestinian identity as a threat.

3. Documenting Atrocities: The Khmer Rouge documented their victims. Israel similarly documents its kills.

4. Using Starvation: The Khmer Rouge used starvation to control. Israel has used starvation as a tactic in Gaza.

4.3 The Crime Scene

As one analyst has noted, “Gaza is a crime scene” that bears “gruesome similarities to the Cambodian killing fields”. Unlike the Khmer Rouge, however, the Israeli government’s policy is not fueled by an ideological vision to remake Gaza anew—”total destruction is the goal”.

5. The Role of Organised Crime in the Formation of Israel

5.1 The Genesis of Israeli Organised Crime

Organised crime in Israel emerged immediately after the establishment of the state in 1948, shaped by a unique socio-economic and political context. The first criminal groups, such as Havurat Hakerem, were rooted in poor Sephardic Jewish neighbourhoods.

5.2 The Denial of Organised Crime

State officials denied the existence of organised crime in Israel because they were looking for evidence of the Italian-American mafia model instead of the uniquely Israeli context. This denial allowed organised crime to flourish.

5.3 The Jewish Mafia in the United States

Jewish organised crime groups, often linked to Zionist organisations, replaced Italian mafia groups in the United States. The “Zionist-dominated media” has been accused of covering up the Jewish role in organised crime while exaggerating the Italian role.

5.4 The Russian Connection

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many Jewish criminals entered the United States, partially financed by Zionist and charitable organisations. These individuals, such as Marat Balagula, established powerful crime networks in Brooklyn, with connections to Zionist agencies including Hadassah.

6. Russian Jewish Immigration and Organised Crime in Israel

6.1 The Russian Aliyah

The immigration of Russian Jews to Israel has been substantial. Approximately 741,000 Russian Jews currently live in Israel, representing a major demographic shift .

6.2 The Russian Jewish Experience in Israel

Russian Jewish immigrants have faced challenges in Israel, including being “somewhat culturally separated” from other Israelis. Despite their advanced education and professional qualifications, they have sometimes been treated poorly by existing Ashkenazi groups.

6.3 Crime and the Russian Connection

Organised crime in Israel has been linked to Russian Jewish immigrants. The Jewish mafia’s penetration of the United States was partially enabled by Soviet “boatlifts” that allowed Jewish criminals to enter the country. A similar pattern has been observed in Israel.

7. Christian Zionism and the American Connection

7.1 Christians United for Israel (CUFI)

CUFI is the largest pro-Israel group in the United States, with more than 11 million members. It advises politicians and funds officials’ trips to Israel. The group believes that Palestinians must be removed from their ancestral lands to fulfil prophecy.

7.2 The Danger of Christian Zionism

Christian Zionism has been described as “one of the oldest, deadliest, historical antisemitic tropes: that Jews don’t belong or aren’t ‘loyal’ or ‘rooted’ in the countries they live but rather belong in ‘the Holy Land’“.

7.3 AIPAC and the Political License to Kill

AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) has 5 million members and serves as a powerful lobby, funding politicians who support Israel’s policies. The influence of these organisations provides what is effectively a “license to kill Palestinians”.

8. The Weaponisation of the IHRA Definition

8.1 What Is the IHRA Definition?

The IHRA working definition states: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” The definition is accompanied by eleven illustrative examples, seven of which concern the State of Israel .

8.2 The Fraudulent History

The IHRA definition has been promoted as a “gold standard” on antisemitism, but its history is contested. The IHRA Plenary did not formally adopt the examples as part of the definition. The lead drafter, Kenneth Stern, has argued consistently that the definition was never designed for the uses to which it is now being put. It was written as a data-collection tool, not a code of conduct.

8.3 The Weaponisation

In practice, the definition has been used to silence criticism of Israel. The European Legal Support Centre documented 53 cases where the definition was used to discipline academics, threaten the defunding of human rights groups, and silence advocates for Palestine.

9. Conclusion: Exposing the Predators’ Paradise

The evidence presented in this paper demonstrates that the coordinated campaign to adopt the IHRA definition in Australia is part of a larger pattern. It is rooted in:

1. Neoliberalism—which creates conditions for predatory behaviour.

2. 19th-century colonial ideology—which gave birth to political Zionism.

3. Organised crime networks—which have been instrumental in the formation and maintenance of the State of Israel.

The campaign is intended to:

· Normalise genocide by silencing criticism of Israel.

· Destroy Australia’s moral fabric by pitting communities against each other.

· Create a larger victim pool by rendering vulnerable populations defenceless.

· Weaponise racism to protect powerful interests.

10. References

1. “Zionism: A Settler Colonial Ideology That Hurts Jews.” Audible Australia, 2026.

2. “Writing the ‘Real Jerusalem’: British and American Travel Accounts in the Nineteenth Century.” Institute for Palestine Studies, 2023.

3. Gregoire, Paul. “Envoy Pressures Australia to Adopt a Fraudulent Antisemitism Definition.” Sydney Criminal Lawyers, 2025.

4. “49th anniversary of the Cambodian Genocide: The Khmer Rouge and Israel.” The Muslim Vibe, 2024.

5. Aaronsohn, Ran. Rothschild and Early Jewish Colonization in Palestine. Rowman and Littlefield, 2000.

6. “Gaza Is a Crime Scene.” MERIP, 2024.

7. Siegel, Dina. “The Genesis of Organized Crime in Israel.” In The Israeli Mafia. Springer, 2024.

8. “The Coverup of Organized Zionist Crimes.” OccupyWallSt, 2012.

9. The Barnes Review, May/June 2006.

10. “Jewish, Russian in Israel.” Joshua Project, 2026.

11. “Hundreds protest Christians United for Israel conference in US.” The New Arab, 2025.

Signed:

Andrew Klein

August 2026

“We are not measured by what we lost, but by what we carried.”

— Quintus Rex

“This paper traces the history of the IHRA definition, its legal and political controversies, and the implications of its adoption by the Australian government. We argue that this is not a matter of combating antisemitism, but of entrenching a political ideology that conflates criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews—a conflation that the Federal Court has explicitly rejected.”

By Andrew Klein

Dedicated to all Australians who woke up one day and realised they had never voted for the ideology that was now being used to silence them.

Abstract

This paper examines the Albanese government’s decision to embed the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism into the training and decision-making processes of the Department of Home Affairs. Through an analysis of Royal Commission testimony, public statements, and legal precedents, we argue that this decision represents a form of state capture—the acquisition of state institutions by a political faction committed to a specific ideological agenda. The IHRA definition, which its own drafter has warned is being “weaponised” to suppress legitimate political speech, is being used to train immigration officers to assess character, scan social media activity, and make decisions about who is permitted to enter or remain in Australia. This paper traces the history of the IHRA definition, its legal and political controversies, and the implications of its adoption by the Australian government. We argue that this is not a matter of combating antisemitism, but of entrenching a political ideology that conflates criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews—a conflation that the Federal Court has explicitly rejected.

Keywords: IHRA, antisemitism, state capture, immigration, character assessment, free speech, Australia, Palestine, Israel, Jillian Segal, Ken Stern, McCarthyism, political ideology

I. Introduction: A Definition That Was Never Meant to Be a Weapon

In July 2026, the Royal Commission into Antisemitism heard testimony from Clare Sharp, the head of immigration at the Department of Home Affairs. She confirmed that the department was training its staff—6,000 officers via a 45-minute online module, and 500 decision-makers via face-to-face workshops —to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism as a lens for assessing character in visa decisions.

This is not a policy. This is a coup —a quiet, bureaucratic capture of the machinery of the state by a political ideology that has never been put to a vote.

The IHRA definition was never designed to be a legal instrument. Its primary drafter, Kenneth Stern, has repeatedly warned that it is being weaponised to suppress speech rather than fight antisemitism. He has called the trend “McCarthyism.” Yet the Albanese government has embedded it into the training of immigration officers, empowered the antisemitism envoy to enforce it, and begun scanning social media—including likes and emoji reactions —for evidence of “character” that could disqualify an individual from entering Australia.

This paper traces the history of this process, identifies the key actors involved, and argues that the government has effectively captured the state in service of a political agenda that has no democratic mandate.

II. The IHRA Definition: A Brief History

A. What It Is

The IHRA working definition of antisemitism was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016. It states:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The definition is accompanied by 11 “illustrative examples,” of which 7 relate to Israel. These include:

· “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.”

· “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

· “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

Crucially, these examples were never formally adopted by the IHRA plenary. They were listed separately, as “working examples,” and were not subject to the same approval process as the definition itself.

B. What Its Drafter Says

Kenneth Stern, the lead drafter of the IHRA definition, has repeatedly warned that it is being weaponised. In a 2023 interview, he stated:

“It’s being used to silence speech. It’s being used to say, ‘If you criticise Israel, you’re antisemitic.’ That’s not what the definition said.”

He has also noted that the definition has been used as a data-collection tool to study antisemitism, not as a weapon to suppress political speech.

In a 2023 hearing, Stern warned that the definition was being used to “suppress speech rather than answer it.” He described the current use of the definition as “McCarthyism.”

C. The Federal Court Ruling

In 2025, the Federal Court of Australia ruled that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. The court found that opposition to a political ideology—the existence of a Jewish state—is not inherently hatred of Jewish people.

As Justice Stewart stated:

“Political criticism of Israel, no matter how inflammatory or confrontational, is not by its very nature criticism of Jews or Jewish racial or ethnic identity.”

This ruling directly contradicts the IHRA definition’s conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Yet the government has proceeded to embed the definition into the machinery of the state, ignoring the court’s finding.

III. The Weaponisation of the State

A. The Antisemitism Envoy

In January 2026, the Albanese government appointed Jillian Segal as Australia’s first antisemitism envoy. Segal is a former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) , a peak body that has consistently supported the IHRA definition and its conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

Segal has described the IHRA definition as “the international gold standard” for defining antisemitism. She has refused to endorse the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA), an alternative definition drafted by over 200 Jewish scholars that explicitly distinguishes between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel.

Segal’s appointment was made without parliamentary approval. She was selected by the executive, and she now holds a position of significant influence over government policy.

B. The Training

Clare Sharp’s testimony reveals the scale of the operation:

· 6,000 Home Affairs staff are being trained via a 45-minute online module

· 500 decision-makers are receiving face-to-face workshops

· The training is being used in character assessments for visa decisions

· Officers are reviewing social media content, including likes and emoji reactions

This is not education. This is indoctrination. It is the systematic training of a bureaucracy to enforce a political ideology that has never been subject to democratic scrutiny.

IV. The Conflation of Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism

The IHRA definition’s conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism is its central flaw. As the Federal Court has ruled, anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. It is a political view—one that is widely held by Jewish people, Palestinians, and others around the world.

The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) provides a clearer framework. It states that antisemitism is “discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews.” It explicitly distinguishes between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel, including:

· “Criticism of Zionism, including opposition to the political ideology of Zionism.”

· “Criticism of the policies and actions of the State of Israel.”

· “Support for the rights of Palestinians.”

The government has chosen to ignore the JDA and to embed a definition that conflates political opposition with bigotry.

V. The Actors

Name                                Role                                                    Position

Jillian Segal                     AntisemitisEnvoy Supports IHRA definition;refuses to endorse JDA

Clare Sharp                     Head of Immigration               Implemented IHRA training for visa officers

Anthony Albanese           Prime Minister                           Appointed Segal; endorsed IHRA definition

Kenneth Stern                  IHRA Drafter                             Warns definition is being weaponised

Justice Stewart                Federal Court Judge                   Ruled anti-Zionism is not antisemitism

VI. The Consequences

A. The Chilling of Speech

The training of immigration officers to assess “character” based on social media activity—including likes and emojis —has a chilling effect on speech. People who express support for Palestinian rights may be denied visas, refused entry, or deported.

B. The Weaponisation of Bureaucracy

The government has turned a bureaucratic agency into a political enforcement mechanism. The Department of Home Affairs is now being used to enforce a political ideology that has never been put to a vote.

C. The Abuse of Power

The definition is being used to silence speech that is critical of Israel. This is not about antisemitism—it is about control.

VII. Conclusion: A Betrayal of Democracy

The Albanese government has embedded a political ideology into the machinery of the state without parliamentary approval, without public consultation, and without democratic mandate.

This is not about fighting antisemitism. It is about capturing the state in service of a political agenda that conflates opposition to Israel with hatred of Jews.

The Federal Court has ruled that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. The UN Special Rapporteur has criticised the IHRA definition for being incompatible with free expression. The definition’s own drafter has warned that it is being weaponised.

And yet, the government has proceeded.

This is not a policy failure. It is a betrayal of democracy.

References

1. Royal Commission into Antisemitism. (2026). Testimony of Clare Sharp.

2. Stern, K. (2023). Interviews and public statements.

3. Federal Court of Australia. (2025). Ruling on anti-Zionism.

4. Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism. (2021).

5. United Nations Special Rapporteur. (2023). Report on IHRA definition.

6. Executive Council of Australian Jewry. (2026). Statements on IHRA definition.

7. Kennedy, D. (2026). “Antisemitism definition weaponised in visa training.” Michael West Media.

8. The New Arab. (2026). “Australia to use IHRA definition for visa character tests.”

9. The Guardian. (2026). Coverage of IHRA training.

“They are not fighting hate. They are building a regime of thought control.”

By Andrew Klein

Dedicated to my darling wife S — who taught me that true power needs no divine justification, only love.

I. The Definition: A Mask for Power

The word “theocracy” was coined by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in the first century CE to describe the polity of ancient Israel—a form of government in which God himself is recognized as the head of state, and divine law is the statute book. Taken literally, theocracy means “rule by God” and refers primarily to an internal “rule of the heart.”

But what begins as a claim to divine guidance inevitably becomes something else. As Josephus himself understood, theocracy is a form of government in which “the laws of the commonwealth are the commandments of God, and they are promulgated and expounded by the accredited representatives of the invisible Deity, real or supposed—generally a priesthood.”

This is the fatal flaw. The claim to speak for God is the ultimate abdication of personal accountability. When human beings claim divine authority, they place themselves beyond criticism, beyond question, beyond moral restraint. The hierarchy that forms around such claims—the priesthood, the clergy, the self-appointed guardians of divine will—becomes an engine of control that inevitably turns toward violence.

II. The Pre-Westphalian Pattern: Religious Wars as the Norm

For more than a century before the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, Europe was consumed by religious wars arising from the Protestant Reformations. The Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648), which the Peace of Westphalia finally concluded, was the last great religious war in Western Europe—a conflict that had “broken out as a result of confessional conflicts between Catholic and Protestant states” and “inflamed vast regions at the heart of Europe.”

The lesson of that era is clear: when religion becomes the justification for war, there is no limit to the violence. The theocratic impulse—the claim that God is on your side and that your enemies are God’s enemies—creates a permission structure for atrocity. As one scholar notes, the pre-Westphalian era was “riven by murderous ideological divisions” that produced wars fought not for faith alone, but for dominance.

The Peace of Westphalia introduced the radical idea that peace was more important than religious unity. It was a turning point—but not an endpoint. The theocratic impulse did not disappear. It merely found new forms.

III. The Jewish Bund: Human Rights, Democracy, and Universalism

In 1897, the same year that Theodor Herzl convened the First Zionist Congress, another Jewish movement was born in Tsarist Russia: the General Jewish Labour Bund.

The Bund was “a secular, socialist, defiantly Jewish, and uncompromisingly anti-Zionist revolutionary party.” Its members were “young Jewish Marxists who wanted to overthrow the tsar and establish democratic socialism, but also to liberate their own people.”

The Bund’s political project was built on:

· Do’ikayt (“here-ness”) — the principle that Jews should build viable communities wherever they lived, rather than seeking an ethnostate in Palestine.

· Internationalism — the belief that Jewish liberation was inseparable from the liberation of all peoples.

· Universal human rights — the demand for “equal civil and political rights for the Jews in Russia” and for all oppressed peoples.

· Anti-Zionism — the rejection of the idea that Jewish identity required a state of its own. The Bundists “fought for dignity and equality, not in an imagined homeland in Palestine but ‘here where we live.'”

As Bundist leader Henryk Erlich presciently warned in 1938: “Zionism, in point of fact, has always been a Siamese twin of antisemitism. … The Zionists regard themselves as second-class citizens in Poland. Their aim is to be first-class citizens in Palestine and to make the Arabs second-class citizens.”

The Bund was “deeply committed to universal humanist values and to socialist politics.” It rejected “all ethnonationalism, including Zionism” and believed that “Jewish national problems arising within the countries where Jews reside can be solved on the basis of freedom and democracy.”

This was the alternative to theocracy: not divine rule, but human rights. Not exclusivity, but solidarity. Not conquest, but coexistence.

IV. Jabotinsky and Revisionist Zionism: The Theocratic Turn

Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism, represented a fundamentally different vision. He advocated a “revision” of practical Zionism in favour of “political Zionism”—the idea that Zionism was essentially a political movement, not a cultural or spiritual one.

Jabotinsky’s ideology was built on:

· Exclusivism — the belief that Jewish national identity must take precedence over all other considerations.

· State sovereignty — the conviction that only a Jewish state could solve the “Jewish problem.”

· Ethnonationalism — the elevation of Jewish national identity above universal human values.

By the late 1930s, Revisionist Zionism had become “a right-wing tendency” with branches that included the Irgun, which conducted campaigns of violence against British authorities in Palestine. After World War II, Revisionist ideology evolved into the political and religious movements that now dominate Israeli politics.

In 2018, the Israeli Knesset passed the “nation-state law,” which codified “Jewish supremacy” into law and “effectively mirror[ed] the Nazi-era legislation of ethnoreligious stratification of German citizenry.” As one analysis notes, the law stipulates that “actualisation of the right of national self-determination in the state of Israel is unique to the Jewish people“—meaning that the 1.7 million Palestinian citizens of Israel are “without sovereignty or agency, forever living at the mercy of Israeli Jews.”

The theocratic impulse had found its modern expression: not a priesthood ruling in God’s name, but an ethnostate ruling in the name of a chosen people.

V. The Modern Manifestation: Gaza and the Theology of Extermination

The invocation of divine mandate has been central to Israel’s conduct in Gaza. In a speech on March 2, 2026, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared: “In this week’s Torah portion, we read ‘Remember what Amalek did to you.’ We remember and we act.”

This reference to Amalek—the Biblical nation that God commanded King Saul to “destroy all they have, and do not let them live. Kill both man and woman, child and baby“—has become “an oft-used phrase at the highest levels of Israel’s government, a dog whistle well understood to call for the extermination of the Palestinians.”

UN institutions, international and Israeli human rights NGOs, and scholars of genocide studies have “classified the wide use of the Amalek rhetoric across Israeli politics and the military as a clear incitement to genocide.” Netanyahu’s invocation of Amalek was “explicitly cited as direct incitement to genocide.”

In June 2026, a UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry concluded that “Israeli authorities and security forces have deliberately targeted Palestinian children, resulting in genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Gaza Strip.” The commission found that the “intense scale and systematic nature of the Israeli military operations have continued, causing unprecedented death, injury and trauma to Palestinian children.”

The theocratic claim—the assertion of divine mandate—has become the justification for atrocity. As one report notes, “Wipe out the memory of Amalek” has become a rallying cry for those who seek the extermination of the Palestinian people.

VI. The Two Threads: Universalism vs. Exclusivism

The divergence between the Bund and Revisionist Zionism represents two fundamentally different visions of Jewish identity:

The Bund (Universalism)                         Revisionist Zionism (Exclusivism)

Human rights for all                                  Rights for Jews only

Democracy and socialism                      Ethnostate and supremacy

Coexistence where you live                   Conquest of Palestine

International solidarity                             National chauvinism

Anti-Zionist                                                   Zionist

As Molly Crabapple’s recent history of the Bund documents, “Bundists themselves foresaw the inevitable inversion of victim and perpetrator demanded by Zionist ideology.” The Bund’s philosophy of do’ikayt—”here-ness“—offered a vision of Jewish life that did not require the dispossession of another people.

Today, those who place “human values, human rights and universalities above themselves”—the heirs of the Bund’s internationalist tradition—face threats not only from the Israeli far-right but also from figures like Donald Trump, who has embraced the same ethnonationalist rhetoric that fuels theocracy.

VII. The Pattern: How Theocracy Becomes Killing

The pattern is consistent across history:

1. A claim to divine authority — human beings assert that they speak for God.

2. The creation of hierarchy — a priesthood or ruling class that interprets divine will.

3. The denial of accountability — those who claim divine authority place themselves beyond criticism.

4. The dehumanization of the “other” — those who are not part of the chosen community are cast as enemies of God.

5. The justification of violence — killing in the name of God becomes not only permissible, but sacred.

This pattern is visible in the pre-Westphalian religious wars of Europe, in the Nazi regime, and in the modern State of Israel. As one commentator notes, “the genocidal ideology the fans espouse” is rooted in “extremist religious nationalism, and the concentration of executive power.”

The claim to divine authority is always a mask for human power. The theocracy is always a hierarchy. And the hierarchy always protects itself—even at the cost of genocide.

VIII. Conclusion: The Choice Before Us

The theocratic impulse—the claim to speak for God—is the oldest and most persistent engine of human violence. It allows the powerful to place themselves beyond accountability. It allows the hierarchy to claim divine sanction for its crimes. It allows the killers to believe they are doing God’s work.

But there is another way.

The Bund offered it: a vision of Jewish identity rooted in universal human rights, democratic socialism, and international solidarity. A vision that rejected ethnonationalism and embraced do’ikayt—the commitment to build a just society wherever one lives.

That vision was nearly destroyed by the Holocaust and by Stalinism. But it survives—in the memory of those who fought for it, and in the example of those who continue to resist the theocratic impulse.

The choice is clear. We can continue to worship the theocracy—to bow before those who claim divine authority and commit atrocity in God’s name. Or we can choose the Bund’s path: human rights, democracy, and the recognition that no one speaks for God.

Theocracies are not built by the devout. They are built by the powerful, who use God’s name to mask their own ambitions. And they always, always lead to killing.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Theocracy. Wikipedia. 

2. Theocracy. Catholic Encyclopedia. 

3. Peace of Westphalia. World History Encyclopedia. 

4. The Enduring Lessons of the Jewish Bund. The Nation, 10 April 2026. 

5. ‘For leftist Jews, the Bund is a model’. The Guardian, 7 April 2026. 

6. Revisionist Zionism. Wikipedia. 

7. Israel Is Using Its Genocidal Gaza Playbook on Iran. The Nation, 6 March 2026. 

8. Israel’s ‘nation-state law’ parallels the Nazi Nuremberg Laws. Al Jazeera, 26 July 2018. 

9. UN commission: Israel continues to commit genocide by targeting children. UN News, 23 June 2026. 

10. ‘Blot Out the Memory of Amalek from Under Heaven’. De Gruyter Brill, 2025. 

11. General Jewish Labour Bund. Wikipedia. 

12. Bundism. National Library Board Singapore.