Thursday, December 25, 2025

 

Netanyahu First – The Real Reason For Washington’s Syrian Caper

by  | Dec 24, 2025 | ANTIWAR.COM

This is part 2 in a series, read part 1 here.

Since Washington is now sacrificing American lives in the aid of HTS (Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham) in Syria, it is timely to more fully trace its roots in what was previously known as the Nusra Front. That’s also back when its current leader and now Syria’s unelected president was known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani, who was a strict jihadist.

Needless to say, after his recent White House visit with the Donald, it can be well and truly said that al-Julani has come a long way. That is, from the time in 2013 when he had been sent to eastern Syria to foment an uprising against its legitimate government by his mentor and terrorist, the aforementioned (Part 1) al-Baghdadi.

Alas, al-Baghdadi was also one and the same bad guy that Trump 1.0 crowed about assassinating a few years back. In any event, the Donald’s new friend and his old enemy had been graduates together at what amounted to the massive prison-based training school for jihadists at Camp Bucca in Iraq.

The latter was dubbed as “America’s Jihadi University”. This 20,000-prisoner monstrosity had been set up by the clueless proconsuls that Bush the Younger had sent to Iraq after Saddam’s demise. As it happened, Washington’s emissaries soon needed a massive human storage facility for the fruits of their misbegotten de-bathification campaign.

Camp Bucca In Iraq

Iraq: Ten years on | Gallery | Al Jazeera

Nevertheless, by the end of the decade, Washington had soured on its Iraq liberation enterprise and was attempting to extricate itself from its failed multi-trillion misadventure. In conjunction with the Iraq wind-down, it undertook to substantially empty the above bulging prison in what became known as the “Great Prison Release of 2009.″ The latter involved releasing 5,700 high-security detainees from Bucca Prison and among these were Baghdadi and Julani.

While the former was soon organizing and leading the Sunni uprising in Mosul and Anbar province of Western Iraq, the Nusra Front was established as a separate entity in Syria by al-Julani. Initially, it was an offshoot of al-Qaeda in Iraq, but in April 2013 al-Baghdadi announced that the Nusra Front had merged with ISIS to form the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

However, al-Julani and the Nusra Front rejected this merger and went their separate way, taking on a role as an independent jihadist force based in western Syria with strongholds in Idlib and Aleppo. Thereafter, al-Julani’s Nusra Front spearheaded the 2015 conquest of this region under the banner of Jaish al-Fatah (the Army of Conquest). The latter was, in turn, described at the time by Foreign Policy magazine as a wonderful “synergy” of jihadist fanatics and lethal Western arms – most especially those supplied by Washington.

So why did the US provide what one analyst called a “cataract of weaponry” to Nusra Front, despite its clear terrorist origins in Iraq and brutal operations in western Syria?

Well, a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report in August 2012, infamously written under the auspices of General Michael Flynn, let the cat out of the bag. Quite dramatically, in fact.

The Flynn report revealed that the Washington neocons and hegemonists had determined to support the establishment of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and western Iraq as part of the effort to depose President Bashar al-Assad and divide the country.

You can’t make this up. The fools in the Pentagon last weekend were actually marching US soldiers side-by-side along with the descendants of savage terrorists that Pentagon officials 12 years earlier had funded to overthrow a completely legitimate and stable government in Damascus.

And that’s not the half of it. The detailed DIA report said the US would be  the creation of a radical religious mini-state, exactly of the sort later established by ISIS as its “caliphate.” It also forthrightly admitted that the so-called Syrian revolution seeking to topple Assad’s government was being driven by “Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and al-Qaeda.”

Indeed, as indicated in Part 1, the seeds of this Salafist principality had been planted when the then ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, had dispatched Julani to Syria in August 2011. Prominent Lebanese journalist Radwan Mortada, who was embedded with Al-Qaeda fighters from Lebanon in Syria, met Julani in the central Syrian city of Homs at that time.

Mortada informed his readers that Julani was being hosted by the Farouq Brigades. The latter was a faction of Senator John McCain’s Free Syrian Army (FSA), which was a sectarian Salafist group that included fighters who had fought for Zarqawi’s brutal Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) after the US invasion.

That’s right. There is a straight line of connection between the Donald’s new friend in Damascus and one of the most demented, savage terrorists to arise in the Middle East in the wake of Washington’s mayhem in Iraq.

Stated differently, the current “liberators” of Syria, who are being supported by the US military as we learned last weekend, were legatees of the brutes who were flushed out of the woodwork by Washington’s foolish “Shock and Awe” campaign in Iraq way back in 2003.

In any event, after receiving his assignment from al-Baghdadi in 2011, Julani and his fighters entered the war against the Syrian government by carrying out multiple terror attacks. In Damascus, in December of the year, Julani sent suicide bombers to target the Syrian government’s General Security Directorate, killing 44, including civilians and security personnel. Two weeks later, in January 2012, Julani sent another suicide bomber to detonate explosives near a bus in the Midan district of Damascus, killing some 26 people.

These bloody doings—coincident with the establishment of the “Support Front for the People of the Levant,” or the Nusra Front—were revealed after a videotape was provided to journalist Mortada showing Julani and other masked men announcing the group’s existence and claiming responsibility for the brutal attacks on civilians. Thus, such is the lineage of the leader and group which purportedly “liberated” Syria from the clutches of the Assad family last year.

In any event, when the Raqqah-based epicenter of ISIL was demolished after 2017, the Nusra Front hung on, changing its name to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in October 2017. This rebranding was part of an effort to distance itself from al-Qaeda and to restructure the group by merging with several other jihadist factions.

For several years HTS remained contained in its narrow Idlib territorial base, even as it was assaulted by constant attacks from the forces of Assad and his Russian allies in the area. In effect, the latter were doing god’s work, taking on the real enemies of civilization.

Nevertheless, al-Julani persevered, recently reinventing himself as Ahmed al-Sharaa – which is his real name. He now wears an even shorter beard than in the second picture below and sometimes even dons a tie, while claiming to be a  “diversity friendly” pluralist friend of all Syrians – Christians, Alawites, Druze etc.

Of course, the latter three constitute the very infidel enemies of the Caliphate, who al-Julani had previously decreed were to be put to death on the ancient orders of the Prophet himself.

In short, Syria is now destined to become even a worse mess than Libya became after it was liberated by Hilary Clinton in 2011. As is evident from the above, you actually need a roster-sheet to even begin to grasp the madness now unfolding there, but the always astute Moon of Alabama has summarized the state of play as well as can be done.

And, again, the administration of the POTUS that ran against the Forever Wars and which last time around the white barn at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue ordered the troops (properly and belatedly) to be brought home.

It is now highly likely that the country will fall apart. Outside and inside actors will try to capture and/or control as many parts of the cadaver as each of them can.

Years of chaos and strife will follow from that.

Israel is grabbing another large amount of Syrian land. It has taken control of the Syrian city of Quneitra, along with the towns of Al-Qahtaniyah and Al-Hamidiyah in the Quneitra region. It has also advanced into the Syrian Mount Hermon and is now positioned just 30 kilometers from (and above) the Syrian capital.

It is also further demilitarizing Syria by bombing every Syrian military storage site within its reach. Air defense positions and heavy equipment are its primary targets. For years to come Syria, or whatever may evolve from it, will be completely defenseless against outside attacks.

Israel is, for now, the big winner in Syria. But with restless Jihadists now right on its border it remains to be seen for how long that will hold.

The U.S. is bombing the central desert of Syria. It claims to strike ISIS, but the real target is any local (Arab) resistance, which could prevent a connection between the U.S.-controlled east of Syria and the Israel-controlled south-west. There may well be plans to further build this connection into an Eretz Israel, a Zionist controlled state, “from the river to the sea.”

Turkey has had and has a big role in the attack on Syria. It is financing and controlling the ‘Syrian National Army’ (previously the Free Syrian Army), which it is mainly using to fight Kurdish separatists in Syria.

There are some 3 to 5 million Syrian refugees in Turkey which the wannabe-Sultan Erdogan wants, for domestic political reasons, to return to Syria. The evolving chaos will not permit that.

Turkey had nurtured and pushed the al-Qaeda derived Hayat Tahrir al-Sham to take Aleppo. It did not expect it to go any further. The fall of Syria is now becoming a problem for Turkey as the U.S. is taking control of it. Washington will try to use HTS for its own interests which are, said mildly, not necessary compatible with whatever Turkey may want to do.

A primary target for Turkey are the Kurdish insurgents within Turkey and their support from the Kurds in Syria. Organized as the Syrian Democratic Forces the Kurds are sponsored and controlled by the United States. The SDF are already fighting Erdogan’s SNA and any further Turkish intrusion into Syria will be confronted by them.

The SDF, supported by the U.S. occupation of east-Syria, is in control of the major oil, gas and wheat fields in the east of the country. Anyone who wants to rule in Damascus will need access to those resources to be able to finance the state.

Despite having a $10 million award on its head HTS leader Abu Mohammad al-Golani is currently played up by western media  as the unifying and tolerant new leader of Syria. But his HTS is itself a coalition of hard-line Jihadists from various countries. There is little left to loot in Syria and as soon as those resources run out the fighting within HTS will begin. Will al-Golani be able to control the sectarian urges of the comrades when these start to plunder the Shia and Christian shrines of Damascus?

During the last years, Russia was less invested in the Assad government than it seemed. It knew that Assad had become a mostly useless partner. The Russian Mediterranean base in Khmeimim in Latakia province is its springboard into Africa. There will be U.S. pressure on any new leadership in Syria to kick the Russians out. However any new leadership in Syria, if it is smart, will want to keep the Russians in. It is never bad to have an alternative choice should one eventually need one. Russia may well stay in Latakia for years to come.

With the fall of Syria Iran has lost the major link in its axis of resistance against Israel. Its forward defenses, provided by Hizbullah in Lebanon, are now in ruins.

Then again, the question recurs. What exactly was the point of wrecking another tiny, mostly land-locked country in the middle east with a population of just 24 million people, a GDP of only $21 billion, a per capita income of barely $1,000, no significant natural resources beyond a 65,000 barrel per day pittance of oil production, no significant steel or other industrial capacity, no tech sector, no capability to project any military power whatsoever beyond its own borders and a consumer sector so devastated by the Washington-instigated civil wars that total auto sales in 2024 were 155 units, which is less than one new car every two days in the entire country!

At the end of the day, not even Washington is stupid enough to waste $40 billion on that. What has really been going on, therefore, is that by the lights of the Empire Firsters Assad had to be removed because he had the wrong allies. The demonization about his tyranny and plunder was just a cover story for the real objective, which was undermining his Iranian ally.

As a minority Alawite, which is a branch of Shiite Islam, Assad had aligned with his Shiite kin in Tehran and permitted Syrian territory to be used by the latter to transport arms and materiale to Iran’s Hezbollah allies in southern Lebanon. In turn, that was fully within Syria’s sovereign rights—especially since Hezbollah played a leading role in the coalition government of Lebanon.

Still, destroying this Shiite nexus in Netanyahu’s behalf was the real reason for the relentless Washington war on Assad. And it explains why Washington spent $40 billion on its incessant embrace and financing of all of the unsavory flotsam and jetsam which percolated up from Syria’s devastating civil war.

Needless to say, there is no way that the homeland security of America was imperiled one little bit either by the Shiite-based Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance or the fact that one sovereign state member of that alliance (Syria) permitted its territory to used to transport weaponry and materiale. The only possible reason for Washington’s two decade folly in Syria, therefore, is the ludicrous Bibi/neocon proposition that Iran is an existential threat to the liberty and security of the American homeland – way over here 6,400 miles from Tehran.

That’s a sick joke, to say the least. Iran’s GDP of $435 billion is equal to just 1.5% or five days worth of US GDP. Likewise, its $8 billion military budget in 2024 was just 0.8% of the $1 trillion monster domiciled in the Pentagon.

Even more to the point, Iran’s tiny Navy consists of 67 mostly coastal patrol boats and fast attack crafts, none of which can operate much outside of the Persian Gulf. Also, it has no long-range aircraft and its longest range missile, the Soumar cruise missile, is non-nuclear and has a maximum range of 1850 miles. That is to say, it can barely reach the European parts of the Mediterranean basin, and can’t hit at all cities like Paris, Berlin, Copenhagen, London, Stockholm or Oslo – to say nothing of even remotely landing on our side of the Atlantic moat.

Finally, Iran is not a rogue nuclear power or wanna be nuclear threat – even according to the 17 Deep State intelligence agencies which write the so-called NIEs or National Intelligence Estimates. These NIEs have said time and again that Iran abandoned even its nuclear research program in 2003.

That’s right. Way back in 2003!

Yet the dunces in the US House of Representatives clap wildly whenever Netanyahu shows about there for another speech falsely claiming that the Iranians are an existential threat to mankind. And now, after the Donald illegally obliterated its uranium enrichment sites, these neocon maniacs nevertheless insist that Tehran is still hell-bent on getting a nuke.

In short, Iran is Bibi Netanyahu’s political pinata, not an enemy of America’s liberty and security. So there are still American troops operating in its erstwhile ally, Syria, for what? Presumably to ensure that Iran can never again receives succor from Damascus.

If Washington were not in the Empire First business and, most especially, not in the entangling alliance business in which allies and clients drag America into conflicts that have no direct bearing on its homeland security, Washington would have all along been following Thomas Jefferson’s advice: That is, it would have pursued peaceful commerce with Iran and Syria, not punished them with crippling sanctions and endless attacks on their own sovereignty and right to pursue foreign policy arrangements by their own best lights.

Finally, and in light of all of this sordid history, what would a legitimate America First foreign policy now do?
Simple. It would close the Middle East bases, bring every last US serviceman home from Syria, send the Fifth Fleet back to homeport in America, lift the sanctions on Iran, and resume peaceful commerce with one and all willing nations in the region.


David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He’s the author of three books, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution FailedThe Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America, TRUMPED! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin… And How to Bring It Back, and the recently released Great Money Bubble: Protect Yourself From The Coming Inflation Storm. He also is founder of David Stockman’s Contra Corner and David Stockman’s Bubble Finance Trader.

IDF Claims Responsibility for 7 More Murders. What Is Israel’s Definition of Ceasefire?

by  | Dec 24, 2025 | ANTIWAR.COM

On December 19, 2025, displaced families in Gaza City gathered in a classroom in the Tuffah neighbourhood to celebrate a wedding. The Gaza Martyrs School had been converted into a shelter for civilians fleeing Israel’s assault. At least six people – including a five‑month‑old baby – were killed when Israeli tanks fired shells into the second floor. Witnesses reported that an Israeli tank advanced into the courtyard, fired several rounds at the floor where the celebration was taking place, and then blocked ambulances and civil defence teams from reaching the scene for more than two hours. By the time aid workers were allowed in, the joyous gathering had become a massacre.

This was not an errant projectile. The Israeli army confirmed it was responsible for the strike. In a post on social media, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) claimed the shells were aimed at militants and that seven fighters were killed. Local health officials and eyewitnesses, however, identified the dead as civilians. Parents carried the remains of their children out of the rubble while charred wedding decorations fluttered in the breeze. Even if the military’s account were true, the decision to use high‑explosive ordnance against a known shelter hosting a wedding – during a declared ceasefire – reveals a callous disregard for civilian life and for the very idea of a truce.

The wedding attack was not an isolated episode. According to the Government Media Office in Gaza, Israel has violated the Gaza ceasefire at least 738 times between October 10 and December 12. These violations include 205 instances of Israeli forces shooting at civilians, 358 air and artillery bombings, 37 raids beyond the “yellow line” boundary, and 138 demolitions of civilian property. Al Jazeera’s analysis shows that Israel has attacked Gaza on 62 out of the 73 days of the ceasefire, leaving only 11 days free of lethal violence. Since the ceasefire began, Israeli attacks have killed at least 401 Palestinians and injured 1,108 others. The wedding massacre is thus a continuation of daily violations rather than a rare breach.

A “ceasefire” that isn’t

Ceasefires are supposed to suspend hostilities, allow civilians to breathe, and create space for diplomacy. In Gaza, the ceasefire that started on October 10, 2025, was part of a 20‑point plan brokered by the United States. It called for an end to all military operations, the lifting of Israel’s blockade on humanitarian aid, the release of captives on both sides, and the withdrawal of Israeli forces behind a “yellow line.” Yet the plan lacked enforcement mechanisms and, crucially, was signed by mediators rather than by the belligerents themselves. Israel determined the location of the “yellow line” unilaterally, placing roughly half of Gaza under continued Israeli occupation. The line is often invisible; civilians crossing it to fetch food or check on their homes have been shot dead. 

Without clear rules or a joint monitoring body, the ceasefire has functioned as little more than a pause for Israel to reposition its troops. Israel continues to block aid and maintain military control over much of the strip. The Palestinian Ministry of Health reports that at least 401 Palestinians have been killed and 1,108 injured since the truce went into effect. Despite attacks occurring on 62 of the first 73 days of the agreement, US officials continue to describe the situation as a “ceasefire.”

Beyond Gaza, Israel has shown the same pattern along its border with Lebanon. In late 2024 it agreed to a ceasefire with Hezbollah, yet UN peacekeepers have documented more than 7,500 Israeli airspace violations and nearly 2,500 ground violations. Lebanese authorities say 331 people have been killed and 945 injured during this period, while UN investigators recorded only four projectiles fired by Lebanese groups, none causing casualties. Such one‑sided enforcement turns the ceasefire into another instrument of Israeli dominance.

What makes a ceasefire credible?

Comparative peace processes show that successful ceasefires have four essential features: precise rules, joint monitoring, accountability mechanisms, and genuine consent from all parties. The Gaza plan contains none of these. In conflicts such as Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Tajikistan, and South Sudan, joint commissions have been established to supervise implementation, monitor adherence, investigate alleged violations, revise operational details, and resolve disputes. The 2005 Sudan ceasefire, for example, created a Ceasefire Political Commission comprising senior political and military officials from each party and a United Nations representative. The Gaza ceasefire, by contrast, lacks even a weak version of such a joint commission, meaning there is no authoritative body to adjudicate allegations of violations.

Without monitoring and accountability, ceasefires quickly erode into unilateral truces. The Government Media Office in Gaza has recorded nearly 600 Israeli violations, at least 356 Palestinian deaths, and more than 900 injuries between October 10 and December 2. The Israeli army claims Hamas violated the ceasefire 18 times in the same period. No neutral body exists to verify either side’s claims. In this vacuum, the stronger party’s narrative prevails by default, and there is no institutional path for victims to seek redress. The result is a ceasefire in name only.

Good‑faith ceasefires elsewhere demonstrate how far the Gaza arrangement falls short. In Northern Ireland, armed groups announced a ceasefire in 1997 and, apart from a few isolated bombings in 1998, largely held their fire. No ceasefire violations were reported in 1999, 2001, 2002, or 2003. This success rested on detailed terms, an independent monitoring body, and a willingness to address underlying grievances. In Sudan, Tajikistan, and South Sudan, ceasefire agreements created joint commissions and oversight committees to monitor compliance. By contrast, the Gaza plan’s skeletal framework allows Israel to define permissible actions unilaterally.

A pattern of impunity

Israel’s disregard for ceasefire obligations is part of a broader pattern of impunity enabled by its allies. UNIFIL’s documentation of thousands of Israeli violations in Lebanon has been met with diplomatic shrugs. Western governments continue to supply weapons and political cover even as Israel blocks aid convoys and destroys reconstruction efforts. Ceasefires are meant to save lives and open the door to negotiations, but when one party can violate them without consequence, the agreements lose credibility. Comparative experience shows that when parties have clear rules, joint monitoring, and genuine intent to negotiate, as in Northern Ireland and Sudan, ceasefires can hold. 

The misuse of ceasefire language is not accidental. War fosters sprawling bureaucracies, entrenched militaries, and lucrative weapons contracts; each new “pause” becomes an excuse for more spending and more surveillance. Powerful states redefine temporary truces as acts of charity while continuing to bomb and occupy. When a permanent war economy invests language itself with propaganda, there is little incentive to accept genuine restraint. This is why opponents of endless wars argue that the only meaningful ceasefire is one that both sides can trust and that reduces the reach of state violence rather than expanding it.

Redefining words to suit war

Israel’s record suggests that “ceasefire” has been stripped of its original meaning. By continuing to bomb shelters and starve civilians while insisting the truce is intact, Israeli officials have redefined a ceasefire as the absence of large‑scale Hamas attacks. Such one‑sided truces teach the weaker side that agreements are meaningless and make future deals harder to achieve. When powerful states use peace agreements as fig leaves for ongoing violence, they degrade the language of diplomacy and reward aggression. 

If Israel’s definition of ceasefire is allowed to stand, the word will lose all meaning. A genuine truce requires both sides to halt offensive operations and submit to independent monitoring. It requires humanitarian access, clear rules, and a commitment to negotiate a political solution. The killing of wedding guests in Gaza is a tragedy and a test. If mediators continue to excuse Israeli violations, they will confirm that some states and their allies are permitted perpetual war. If, instead, they enforce the ceasefire and demand accountability, then the word might regain its meaning and open a path to peace.

Indiscriminate Suppression: Attacking pro-Palestinian Protests After the Bondi Killings



 December 25, 2025

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

It has become a wallowing cringe.  The extolling of multi-culti values, the incessant self-praise of diversity, variety and cosmopolitanism, only to then impose, in the name of such values, a restrictive regime of speech, language and conduct seemed suitable to – who else? – the jerky authorities.  In diversity we must oppress; in variety we must police.  The Bondi Beach killings by two alleged ISIS supporters during a Hanukkah event have seen Australian lawmakers succumb to the panic of immediate results and shoddy gains.

It matters not how poor the legislation is, how ill-thought its words are: something must be seen to be done.  Historical and cultural context, inconveniences for expedient legislators and magistrates, is also absent: ISIS has never bothered itself with the cause of Palestinian sovereignty, aspiring, instead, to the creation of a murderous caliphate.

The need to be seen to be doing something has manifested in a range of measures from tighter gun controls to the outlawing of protests and the intended prohibition of various words.  Farmers are furious that they were not consulted regarding the first matter, reminding lawmakers that food security also requires vigilance against agricultural vermin.  Activists, civil libertarian advocates and human rights groups are worried about the last two.

The NSW Premier Chris Minns has decided on a blanketing approach, seeing all protests associated with pro-Palestinian marches as part of a common, insidious condition.  On December 17, he told gathered members of the press “that protest right now in Sydney would be incredibly terrible for our community. In fact, they would rip apart our community, particularly protests about international events”.

This shoddy reasoning was expanded in remarks made on December 23, showing a tenuous grasp, not only of international events but the currents of history.  “How,” he wondered, “can it be that a protest can take place in the state and there’s a swastika tattooed on the Star of David on a poster in the middle of the city?  Or photos of the Ayatollah, the leader of Iran … Shirts saying, ‘Death to the IDF’.  A sign that says: ‘All Zionists are neo-Nazis’”.

If he dared consult the history books on such nasty practices as ethnic cleansing and genocide, both applied with frightening effectiveness by the homicidal machinery of Nazi Germany, this might supply a clue to some of that symbolism.  A sad state for humanity’s standing is that eliminating and displacing races, tribes and national groups is common fare for empires and civilisations.  It is normally axiomatic that settlement implies conquest and subjugation and elimination.  But Minns is simple, bemoaning that protests with such “signs” must have a “bearing on either the culture, the temperature or even extreme actions within our community”.  By taking to the streets with chants, placards and the décor of demonstrations, “the organisers of these protests are unleashing forces they can’t control.”

Minns, it would seem, is on a mission against the language and conduct of undesirable protest.  He has already shown this in implementing anti-protest laws with a drunk’s enlivened enthusiasm.  Under respective Coalition and Labor governments, the state has become known for laws that have targeted climate change activism and, increasingly since 2023, those associated with the Palestinian cause.  He now seeks to give the NSW police commissioner powers to refuse applications for protests where a terrorism designation has been made under the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 (NSW).

The Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 (NSW) grants police powers to impose public assembly restrictions via a “public assembly restriction declaration” within 14 days of a terrorist incident, prohibiting protests for up to three months.   It also criminalises the display of “prohibited terrorist organisation symbols” without reasonable excuse.

Inevitably, the changes will imperil the welfare of the very people it seeks to protect while demonising those who genuinely seek change in policies through peaceful assembly.  It also undermines the very thing Minns and his colleagues fetishise: societal harmony.  Timothy Roberts, president of the NSW Council for Liberties, makes the self-evident point that, “Connecting the horrific events of the Bondi attack in any way with recent protests continues the harmful trend of conflating criticism of the actions of the government of Israel with antisemitism.”  In so doing, the Premier was undermining “the community harmony […] he is worried about.”

The legislative actions also mark Jews out as either objects of exceptional charity, or useful alibis for policymakers seeking an ever more repressive state.  “It places us Jews in the crosshairs,” reasons Michelle Berkon from Jews Against the Occupation.  “These laws are not about protecting Jews … they’re not even about protecting Israel.”  The notion of “Jewish safety” had been used to scapegoat “the millions of anti-racist Australians protesting genocide” while “using Jewish people as your human shields.”

The changes were passed by the Upper House in the early morning of Christmas Eve and are set to be approved by the Lower House without fuss.  The fuss will come in the form of a constitutional challenge from the Palestine Action Group, Jews Against the Occupation and the First Nations-led Blak Caucus in the new year.  The addition of the last group shows that cumbrous indiscriminate laws can have telling results.  Representative Lizzie Jarrett summed up the sentiment: “It would really be a kick in the face to this conversation that the government keeps having with us about reconciliation, closing the gap, and putting the realities of First Nations people on the table.”  Minns would do well to learn a thing or two about that particular history of settlement, one replete with ethnic cleansing, dispossession and genocide.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com