iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 01/07/2026

Special envoy's handbook www.aseca.gov.au/sites/defaul... says antisemitism is “shape-shifting”; “many antisemitic tropes are conveyed and justified in the language of human rights and international legal arguments”. Page 76: "Antisemitism & antizionism are both expressions of hatred towards Jews."

Extract from Special Envoy handbook page 76

“In modern times, particularly after the
October 7th, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas,
much of the dis course among protesters
worldwide and within pro-Palestinian and
Arabic-speaking circles aligns with this
Soviet-influenced narrative….Today, as during
the Cold War, this narrative continues to
perpetuate antisemitism by portraying Israel
as a product of Western colonial ambitions,
reinforcing harmful stereotypes under the
guise of anti-imperialist and anti-colonial
discourse.”
Trying to separate “antisemitism” from
“antizionism” ignores the history of
misinformation, disinformation and
antisemitic propaganda that has shaped
narratives about Israel and Zionism. It
also ignores the lived and practical reality
that wherever these antizionist narratives
have been propagated, it has resulted in
dis crimination, harassment, vilification,
hate and harm towards Jews. For example,
Poland’s 1968 antizionist campaign resulted
in expulsions and forced emigration of
thousands of Jewish Poles.
Antisemitism and antizionism are both
expressions of hatred towards Jews.

190

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 01/07/2026

More interesting were three pages at the end of the bundle showing form language the Dept of Home Affairs uses to respond to concerns from members of the public regarding the IHRA definition (including "concerns regarding the conflation of antisemitism with legitimate criticism of Israeli policies")

Extract from Dept of Home Affairs correspondence template:

Conflation concerns
I note your concerns regarding the conflation of antisemitism with legitimate criticism of Israeli policies. You may be aware that the Government has adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism in an effort to assist in framing the issue, understanding its causes and coordinating action to respond to it. The IHRA’s working definition was embraced by the Australian Government in 2021 and is not legally binding. The examples of antisemitism, which the IHRA offer for illustrative purposes, highlight that criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

130

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 01/07/2026

...but nothing particularly revealing as the FOI decision maker redacted some pages that would have shed light on government "deliberative processes": "Disclosure of this deliberative information could reasonably be expected to inhibit full and frank advice from the Department to its Minister"

130

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 01/07/2026

After the usual FOI procedural joys - an extension granted, follow-ups after the deadline was missed - I finally received back a bundle of documents from Home Affairs a couple of weeks ago. There were some emails related to the Govt's response to the Special Envoy's Plan to Combat Antisemitism....

Extract from an email

Subject: RE: Additional changes and input
Date: Wednesday, 17 December 2025 8:15:46 PM

Hi [redacted]

The below is also not mentioned in the draft, and it could be, either under ‘definition’ or the Envoy’s Work Plan section:
The Envoy will publish a supplementary guide to the IHRA definition (an IHRA Handbook), which will assist in its application in an Australian context.

Thanks

130

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 01/07/2026

Given the Albanese govt had put the IHRA working definition of antisemitism into the royal commission terms of reference, I thought it would be a matter of public interest to try to find out what advice / talking points ministers had received on this definition. So I applied for this in Feb.

Extract from my FOI application 11 February 2026:

I apply under the Freedom of Information Act to the following documents held by the Department of Home Affairs:

1. Any ministerial submissions, advice or briefings to/for Minister Burke and/or Minister Aly in relation to the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. This search is limited to the period 29 July 2024 to 11 February 2026 inclusive.

2. The most up-to-date version of talking points in relation to the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. (To be clear, I'm not seeking every version of the talking points that has existed in the search period, just the latest version as of the date of this FOI application.)

150

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 01/04/2026

This is giving me flashbacks to the awkward 2021 AUKUS virtual presser from Biden, Johnson and Morrison ("that fella down under")

Headline from AFR home page: "Live: Trump, Starmer and Albanese all announce imminent ‘addresses to the nation’"

082

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 03/03/2026

It’s pretty clear this was all agreed in advance. Here is a Politico story from 25 Feb stating Trump admin officials “are privately arguing that an Israeli attack would trigger Iran to retaliate, helping muster support from American voters for a U.S. strike” www.politico.com/news/2026/02...

Politico:
Exclusive
White House officials believe ‘the politics are a lot better’ if Israel strikes Iran first
As the administration mulls military action in Iran, officials argue it’d be best ifIsrael makes the first move.

Extract from Politico story:
"The calculus is a political one — that more Americans would stomach a war with Iran if the United States or an ally were attacked first. Recent polling shows that Americans, and Republicans in particular, support regime change in Iran, but are unwilling to risk any U.S. casualties to achieve it. That means Trump’s team is considering the optics of how an attack is conducted in addition to other justifications — such as Iran’s nuclear program.

“There’s thinking in and around the administration that the politics are a lot better if the Israelis go first and alone and the Iranians retaliate against us, and give us more reason to take action,” said one of the people familiar with discussions. Both individuals were granted anonymity to describe private conversations.

With hopes dimming in Washington for a diplomatic resolution to the standoff with Iran, the primary question is becoming when and how the U.S. attacks."

112

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 03/03/2026

This justification of an "imminent" threat is extraordinary. The US's position is that it had to strike because it knew that its ally Israel was going to attack and induce Iran to respond

Guardian live blog extract: Headline: "US attacked Iran 'pre-emptively' after learning Israel was going to launch strikes - Rubio"

Text:
"The US attacked Iran “pre-emptively” on Saturday to protect US forces from retaliation after learning that Israel was going to strike, Marco Rubio told reporters on Monday.

The US secretary of state said: “There absolutely was an imminent threat. And the imminent threat was, that we knew that if Iran was attacked, and we believed that they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us. And we were not going to sit there and absorb a blow before we responded.”

He added: “We knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”

Six US service members have been killed since Saturday."

31410

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 01/03/2026

A very illuminating moment in Penny Wong's press conference today. The Australian foreign minister won't claim the attacks were legal #auspol

Extract from Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong's press conference on 1 March 2026:

Journalist: Israel described this as a pre-emptive strike, so was there an imminent threat? Was there talk of that? Is that why this was [indistinct]?

Foreign Minister: I'll leave it for the United States and Israel to speak of the basis, the legal basis for the attacks. What I would say to Australians is that Iran has been a destabilising force in the region for decades. It has orchestrated attacks on Australia, and I think we all understand that this issue did not start yesterday.

42210

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 16/09/2025

That sounds similar to a comment from an unnamed “senior Biden admin official” when AUKUS was first announced in Sept 2021: “this is a fundamental decision ... that binds decisively Australia to the United States and Great Britain for generations”. bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-roo...

Extract from September 2021 Biden White House press briefing on AUKUS:

I just want to underscore that this is a fundamental decision — fundamental — that binds decisively Australia to the United States and Great Britain for generations.

This is the biggest strategic step that Australia has taken in generations. And it is noteworthy that it comes here during the 70th anniversary of ANZUS. So it’s a substantial strategic alignment for Australia, building on a deep partnership with both countries.

110

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 16/09/2025

At an event on 3 April 2024, Campbell was asked to describe the “ultimate payoff” for AUKUS. He flagged “enormous implications in a variety of scenarios, including in cross-strait circumstances” (meaning the Taiwan Strait) www.cnas.org/publications...

Extract from a CNAS event:

Kurt Campbell: Look, I would argue that as the United States and other nations confront a challenging security environment, that the best way to maintain peace and security is to work constructively and deeply with allies and partners. I would, as a propositional statement, I would begin with that. I think there would be some that would say no, that the best thing that the United States can do is to act alone and to husband its resources and think about unilateral, individual steps it might take.

I would reject that thinking. I think what we're confronting now are challenges that require a much deeper engagement with allies and partners. I think the idea over time, Richard, will be in a number of potential areas of conflict and in a number of scenarios that countries acting together, and I think the leading nations right now in the Indo-Pacific, including Japan, Australia, South Korea, I would add India to that framework, increasingly operating more closely, greater capabilities more generally. I think that balance, that additional capacity will help strengthen deterrence more general. I think those practical circumstances in which AUKUS has the potential to have submarines from a number of countries operating in close coordination that could deliver conventional ordinance from long distances. Those have enormous implications in a variety of scenarios, including in cross-strait circumstances, and so I think I would argue that working closely with other nations, not just diplomatically, but in defense avenues, has the consequence of strengthening peace and stability more generally.

110

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 16/09/2025

26 June 2023, Campbell told an event: “I would also just remember that when submarines are provided from the United States to Australia, it's not like they're lost. They will just be deployed by the closest possible allied force.” www.csis.org/analysis/con...

Extract Kurt Campbell's comments at a CSIS event:

We have an unprecedented commitment of Australia into our industrial base to basically focus on improving, what I would argue, is the jewel in the crown, which is our submarine capacity, which frankly needs more resources. It needs more focus. And they’re not only providing it, but they're helping us understand the kinds of investments that the Admiral indicates.

And I would simply say, Charles, that it is not just the ability to build two submarines a year of the attack variety that you were describing, it is also getting a troublingly large number of submarines that are in drydock and are in repair back into the water and deployed more quickly.

And I think the truth is we do have a plan that will allow us to meet the requirements that are laid out in AUKUS.

But I would also just remember that when submarines are provided from the United States to Australia, it's not like they're lost. They will just be deployed by the closest possible allied force.

In many cases, you could make the argument that that enhances deterrence, which I would, and, frankly, creates more capacity. And that's really the reason why I'm grateful for the way that you asked these questions.

The strategic significance of AUKUS is that both Australia and Great Britain have made a fundamental decision to align with us strategically, not just now, but as the Admiral indicates, into the distant future.

100

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 16/09/2025

On 19 November 2021, Campbell told an event that the AUKUS arrangement among the US, Australia and the UK could lead to “almost a melding" of the three countries' military services web.archive.org/web/20240125...

Extract from a Guardian article:

Those concerns were heightened when, in recent remarks, Campbell predicted Aukus would lead to “almost a melding of our services”.

“I would think in the next little while we will have more British sailors serving on our naval vessels, Australians and the like, more of our forward-deployed assets in Australia,” Campbell told the US Institute of Peace two weeks ago.

“This leads to a deeper interconnection and, almost a melding in many respects of our services and working together on common purpose that we couldn’t have dreamed about five or 10 years ago.”

100

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 04/09/2025

So according to the Guardian, Australia's Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism has declined to comment on the neo-Nazis www.theguardian.com/australia-ne...

Extract from the Guardian's article:

Jillian Segal has also declined to specifically address the presence of neo-Nazis at anti-immigration marches on the weekend, during a speech at a Gold Coast conference organised by the US-based Combat Antisemitism Movement and during a subsequent press conference.

“I don’t want to comment on any particular incidents as I think this goes beyond any particular incident, this is part of the fabric of our society. We have found that fabric is shredded. Antisemitism is actually shredding it,” Segal said, when asked by reporters about Sunday’s March for Australia rallies.

253

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 19/08/2025

Another must-read from @nesrinemalik.bsky.social www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

Extract from an opinion article by Nesrine Malik in the Guardian: "The truth is that journalists in Gaza have been colossally failed by many of their colleagues in the western media – not just in terms of how their killings are reported, but in how the entire conflict is described. Figures of the dead and starving in Gaza are often described as coming from “Hamas-run” ministries, but you don’t see the statements coming from Israeli authorities caveated as serially unreliable, or the phrase “wanted by the international criminal court” attached to the name Benjamin Netanyahu. Meanwhile, the word of Palestinian journalists is never quite enough – not until foreign media (who are not allowed into Gaza) can give the final gold-standard judgment. They are cast out of the body of journalism, their truth buried along with them."

153

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 29/07/2025

The Nov 2024 statement by the ICC pre-trial chamber is troubling reading. But it’s worth noting that decisions allowing or increasing humanitarian assistance into Gaza “were often conditional” and usually just a response to international pressure, but still not sufficient.

Extract from International Criminal Court statement Nov 2024:

The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity, from at least 8 October 2023 to 20 May 2024. This finding is based on the role of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant in impeding humanitarian aid in violation of international humanitarian law and their failure to facilitate relief by all means at its disposal. The Chamber found that their conduct led to the disruption of the ability of humanitarian organisations to provide food and other essential goods to the population in need in Gaza. The aforementioned restrictions together with cutting off electricity and reducing fuel supply also had a severe impact on the availability of water in Gaza and the ability of hospitals to provide medical care.

The Chamber also noted that decisions allowing or increasing humanitarian assistance into Gaza were often conditional. They were not made to fulfil Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law or to ensure that the civilian population in Gaza would be adequately supplied with goods in need. In fact, they were a response to the pressure of the international community or requests by the United States of America. In any event, the increases in humanitarian assistance were not sufficient to improve the population’s access to essential goods.

Furthermore, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that no clear military need or other justification under international humanitarian law could be identified for the restrictions placed on access for humanitarian relief operations. Despite warnings and appeals made by, inter alia, the UN Security Council, UN Secretary General, States, and governmental and civil society organisations about the humanitarian situation in Gaza…

3197

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 29/07/2025

Still on 28 March 2024, the ICJ set out an expanded and legally binding order for Israel to “ensure, without delay, in full co-operation with the United Nations, the unhindered provision at scale by all concerned of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance”.

Extract from International Court of Justice order on 28 March 2024:
(2) Indicates the following provisional measures:
The State of Israel shall, in conformity with its obligations under the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,
and in view of the worsening conditions of life faced by Palestinians in
Gaza, in particular the spread of famine and starvation:
(a) Unanimously,
Take all necessary and effective measures to ensure, without delay, in full
co-operation with the United Nations, the unhindered provision at scale by
all concerned of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance, including food, water, electricity, fuel, shelter, clothing, hygiene and
sanitation requirements, as well as medical supplies and medical care to
Palestinians throughout Gaza, including by increasing the capacity and
number of land crossing points and maintaining them open for as long as
necessary;

1266

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 28/07/2025

The people we hold to account are not our friends - a refreshingly clear note from @sophieblackwords.bsky.social www.crikey.com.au/2025/07/28/c...

Extract from Crikey editor-in-chief Sophie Black's piece on how to cover this parliament: "As always, our institutional view at Crikey is not merely that we are not here to cheerlead, but that everyone who wields power should be treated with scepticism. People in positions of power — no matter whether they are on your preferred political team, or you think they’re nice people, or their opponents are appalling — always need to be subjected to scrutiny. People in power are not our friends, and should never be given the benefit of the doubt."

610119

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 10/07/2025

So if this piece on the Pentagon review of AUKUS is accurate, the choice to be presented to Australia is either: do you want to be shaken down for more billions in cash with no guarantee of refunds if the subs don't come, or do you want to shred your sovereignty? www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...

Extract from SMH/Age article on Pentagon's AUKUS review:

"Two Australian officials said one option for Colby was to seek more money for the US submarine industry, which Australia is already contributing $4.7 billion towards.

Two other Australian sources, one in the political establishment and one in defence who have both spoken to Colby, said Colby believed Australia should give a public declaration or private guarantee that US-made nuclear submarines would be used in a possible conflict with China.

Colby is on record as saying the US is not building enough Virginia-class subs for its own needs, even before selling Australia a minimum of three from 2030."

296

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 28/06/2025

The defenders of AUKUS would tell you at this point that this highly enriched uranium will be transferred to Australia in sealed reactors that don’t need to be opened during the life of the submarine. And there is no suggestion Australia is seeking nuclear weapons. www.asa.gov.au/sites/defaul...

Extract from Australian government fact sheet on AUKUS non-proliferation assurances:

The nuclear fuel Australia receives cannot be used in nuclear weapons without further chemical processing, requiring facilities that Australia does not have and will not seek.

131

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 28/06/2025

In justifying strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, the ex Labor minister writes: “It is generally agreed that Iran has enriched uranium to 60%, well above the 10% used in nuclear power plants. There are no other uses for 60%-enriched uranium other than taking it further to 90%, which is weapons grade.”

Extract from Craig Emerson's column:

Meanwhile, legal experts have condemned the US for breaching international law by bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities located deep beneath mountains, guaranteeing blanket coverage by anti-Israel media outlets.

Never mind that it is generally agreed that Iran has enriched uranium to 60 per cent, well above the 10 per cent used in nuclear power plants.

There are no other uses for 60 per cent-enriched uranium other than taking it further to 90 per cent, which is weapons grade. That can be done speedily.

What do these legal experts and media outlets expect the US and Israel to do? Wait until Iran – a country whose leadership routinely pledges death to Israel and death to America – achieves weapons-grade enrichment?

121

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 23/06/2025

Often at times like this it’s more illuminating to see what governments don’t say, than what they do say. Here are two times today when Penny Wong studiously avoided answering whether the US strikes complied with international law - Minister dodged the question on AM and didn't answer at the presser

Penny Wong interview with ABC Radio:

Higgins: A firm endorsement there, Minister Wong, there has been international lawyers, foreign policy experts, the Greens who say that they view these US strikes as illegal under international law. What is your view, are they lawful?

Foreign Minister: Look, I think that we are all clear that Iran has not, cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. We all know what the United Nations nuclear watchdog has said. So yes, the Government does support action to prevent that. What I would say is the key question for the international community is what happens next. We're deeply concerned about continued escalation and a full-scale war with all of the consequences, not just for Australians in the region, but all the peoples of the region and the risk to global instability.

Extract from joint press conference Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong:

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you talk about Tehran coming back to the negotiating table. They were in discussions with the US 10 days ago, Israel attacked it. It actually bombed its chief negotiator. Regardless of what you think about the regime, what incentive – hasn't this blown Tehran's trust in the negotiation process? And Minister Wong, you were asked this morning whether you think these – whether Australia believes these attacks are legal under international law. Can we clarify, do you believe they were legal under international law?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, Iran has an interest, an interest very clearly as well, I believe, in ensuring that there is not an escalation in the region and that is the incentive that they have. The United States have made clear their position and we continue to call for dialogue. Had Iran complied with the very reasonable requests that were made, including by the IAEA, then circumstances would have been different.

410834

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 23/06/2025

Hmmm: "Iran didn't come to the table," says Albanese

Guardian live blog entry: "PM responds to Iran crisis: 'We don’t want escalation and a full-scale war'
Anthony Albanese says the government supports action to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon – while underlining the need for a diplomatic end to the Israel-Iran conflict.

Speaking with reporters just now, the prime minister said:

"The world has long agreed that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon and we support action to prevent that – that is what this is. The US action was directed at specific sites central to Iran’s nuclear program. We don’t want escalation and a full-scale war.

We continue to call for dialogue and for diplomacy. As I have said for many days now, we are deeply concerned about any escalation in the region and we want to see diplomacy, dialogue and de-escalation.

We have been upfront about the challenge facing the international community – that is, dealing with the threat posed by any Iranian nuclear weapons program and dealing with the risk of regional escalation. That’s why Australia called upon Iran to come to the table and abandon any nuclear weapons program. IRAN DIDN'T COME TO THE TABLE just as it has repeatedly failed to comply with its international obligations."

65716

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 19/06/2025

Here's the key passage from the US intelligence community assessment released just three months ago. Media reports today say the US intel community still stands by that assessment www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/d... www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/u...

From the US intel community assessment March 2025:
"WMD
We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear
weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so. In the past year,
there has been an erosion of a decades-long taboo on discussing nuclear weapons in public that has
emboldened nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decisionmaking apparatus. Khamenei remains the
final decisionmaker over Iran’s nuclear program, to include any decision to develop nuclear weapons.
Iran very likely aims to continue R&D of chemical and biological agents for offensive purposes. Iranian military
scientists have researched chemicals that have a wide range of sedation, dissociation, and amnestic
incapacitating effects, and can also be lethal."

0246

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 08/04/2025

Interestingly, this 2002 Dutton chap was not impressed with – in his words – "groups who grab headlines in tabloids on the basis of anything but substance"

051

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 08/04/2025

Here is that part of Dutton's first speech to parliament in 2002 parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea...

Peter Dutton, first speech to parliament, 2002: "The fight for a better place in which to live is today made even more difficult for many reasons, not least of which is the fact that the boisterous minority and the politically correct seem to have a disproportionate say in public debate today. The silent majority, the forgotten people—or the aspirational voters of our generation, as some like to term them—are fed up with bodies like the Civil Liberties Council and the Refugee Action Collective, and certainly the dictatorship of the trade union movement. Australians are fed up with the Civil Liberties Council— otherwise known as the criminal lawyers media operative—who appear obsessed with the rights of criminals yet do not utter a word of understanding or compassion for the victims of crime. Their motives are questionable and their hypocrisy breathtaking."

167

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 07/04/2025

On the left, 2025 Dutton says giving a heads-up to the ambassador is a sign of respect. On the right, 2022 Dutton says: "I would never run a speech through the Chinese embassy to get their approval before I spoke." Sources: peterdutton.com.au/leader-of-th... www.skynews.com.au/australia-ne...

Extracts from Peter Dutton's press conference on control of the Port of Darwin on 5 April 2025:

"In relation to this issue, this is an important national security issue and we had contact yesterday with the Chinese Ambassador, out of respect, before we made this decision.

…

We can have a good trading relationship and a respectful relationship with China which is why we spoke to the Ambassador ahead of the announcement that we made and I note that the Prime Minister or the Foreign Affairs Minister didn’t do that.

…

We need to have a strong and respectful relationship with the Chinese Communist Party and we’re happy to do that and we’ve demonstrated that through reaching out to the Ambassador ahead of our announcement, last night."

Extracts from Sky News article on April 24, 2022, headlined: "Defence Minister Peter Dutton accuses Labor of ‘appeasing’ China and says the ALP is ‘backing’ Beijing over the United States"

The deputy Labor leader (Richard Marles) has come under fire after it was revealed in The Australian that he provided the Chinese embassy in Canberra with a copy of a speech he was set to deliver in Beijing in 2019. …
Mr Dutton slammed the deputy Labor leader – who has been touted as a potential replacement to Brendan O’Connor in the defence portfolio should the ALP win government – and said the decision was indicative of the broader Opposition leadership team.
“I would never run a speech through the Chinese embassy to get their approval before I spoke,” Mr Dutton said.
“And it shows the culture within the Labor Party, it is not going to keep our country safe… and Penny Wong and Richard Marles and Anthony Albanese out there this week show their naivety, their lack of preparedness to keep our country safe into the future."

1133

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 02/04/2025

Coalition 2019: There’s no excuse for university inaction on free speech Coalition today: Coalition pledges to weed out ‘activism’ in universities #auspol

Article in The Australian: "There’s no excuse for university inaction on free speech"

By Dan Tehan

June 15, 2019

As our nation enters much-needed debates on freedom of religion and freedom of the press, it’s time for our universities to stand up and defend free speech and freedom of academic inquiry.

They should start by implementing Robert French’smodel code for the protection of freedom of speech and academic freedom in Australian higher education providers .

Australia has a first-class higher education sector, providing our nation with much-needed export income and world-class research.

Article in The Australian: "Coalition pledges to weed out ‘activism’ in universities"

1 April 2025

The Coalition has pledged to wipe out “woke” activism and “ideological agendas” in universities through an unprecedented level of ministerial intervention in course content.

Opposition education spokeswoman Sarah Henderson, spelling out the Coalition’s higher education policy for the first time during the election campaign, said she would direct the Tertiary Quality Education Quality and Standards Agency to take action against “indoctrination’’.

“I am concerned that some courses are being impacted by teachings which are designed to drive political agendas,” Senator Henderson told The Australian.

15120

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 20/03/2025

It also includes an obligation "to take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory". Dutton was silent on this specific issue when it comes to the bounds of an FTA today.

ICJ: "278. Taking note of the resolutions of the Security Council and General Assembly, the Court
is of the view that Member States are under an obligation not to recognize any changes in the physical
character or demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the territory occupied by
Israel on 5 June 1967, including East Jerusalem, except as agreed by the parties through negotiations
and to distinguish in their dealings with Israel between the territory of the State of Israel and the
Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Court considers that the duty of distinguishing
dealings with Israel between its own territory and the Occupied Palestinian Territory encompasses,
inter alia, the obligation to abstain from treaty relations with Israel in all cases in which it purports
to act on behalf of the Occupied Palestinian Territory or a part thereof on matters concerning the
Occupied Palestinian Territory or a part of its territory; to abstain from entering into economic or
trade dealings with Israel concerning the Occupied Palestinian Territory or parts thereof which may
entrench its unlawful presence in the territory; to abstain, in the establishment and maintenance of
diplomatic missions in Israel, from any recognition of its illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory; and to take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of
the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (see Legal Consequences
for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding
Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, pp. 55-56,
paras. 122, 125-127)."

1131

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 20/03/2025

🧵 Dutton says he'll seek an FTA with Israel if he wins the election. A reminder that the International Court of Justice last year found all countries were “under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence” in occupied territory.

Peter Dutton: "We will revitalise discussions on a Free Trade Agreement with our trusted partner, Israel – building on a strong economic relationship and looking to harness Israel’s strengths in technology and R&D."

1720483

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 02/03/2025

Israel remains subject to the binding orders of the International Court of Justice, which ruled on 28 March 2024 that it must "ensure" unhindered provision at scale of aid to Gaza, and the IDF must not prevent "the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance" www.icj-cij.org/sites/defaul...

Extract from International Court of Justice orders 28 March 2024:
"The State of Israel shall, in conformity with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and in view of the worsening conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza, in particular the spread of famine and starvation:
(a) Unanimously,
Take all necessary and effective measures to ensure, without delay, in full co-operation with the United Nations, the unhindered provision at scale by all concerned of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance, including food, water, electricity, fuel, shelter, clothing, hygiene and sanitation requirements, as well as medical supplies and medical care to Palestinians throughout Gaza, including by increasing the capacity and number of land crossing points and maintaining them open for as long as necessary;
(b) By fifteen votes to one,
Ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit acts which constitute a violation of any of the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza as a protected group under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, including by preventing, through any action, the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance;"

0226

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 02/03/2025

This is illuminating. In other words: "be sycophantic to the Maga man and drop your country's key ask" www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...

Guardian news article says: "The [US] officials believed that had all been communicated to Ukraine, as was the advice that senators gave Zelenskyy on Friday morning to praise Trump and not litigate the issue of wanting stronger security guarantees to his face."

150

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 07/02/2025

This is how Senator Wong responded the last time the Trump administration imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court - but this was back in 2020 when she was in opposition, not in government www.pennywong.com.au/media-hub/me... #auspol

Media release: US Sanctions of ICC Officials

04 September 2020

Labor objects to the US Administration’s decision to sanction International Criminal Court officials.

While the world is grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic, conflicts and human rights abuses continue.

The work of the ICC is vital to upholding international law and the multilateral rules-based order.

The Foreign Minister has prioritised targeting efforts to preserve “norms that underpin universal human rights, gender equality and the rule of law.”

We urge the Minister to express to her US counterpart that this decision does not help preserve those norms.

Australia has traditionally been a strong supporter of the Court. The creation of the Court in 2002 was enthusiastically supported by Prime Minister John Howard and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer.

Labor calls on the Australian Government to work with aligned nations to support its important work.

251

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

This is ethnic cleansing/forced population transfer and it is wrong (Image source: www.theguardian.com/world/live/2... )

Trump calls for the permanent 'resettlement' of all Palestinians from Gaza

Donald Trump has been speaking to reporters ahead of talks with Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, at the White House.

The US president said he would support an effort to permanently resettle Palestinians from Gaza to places where they can live without fear of violence.

Trump described Gaza as a “demolition site”. “The whole thing is a mess. It’s all death,” he said.

I think we need another location … If we can get a beautiful area to resettle people permanently.

He said he believed Palestinians should not be going back to Gaza. “Why would they want to return? The place has been hell,” he said.

Asked how many people he believed should be resettled from Gaza, Trump replied: “All of them.”

182

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 02/02/2025

Trump is a "man of action" in the same way an arsonist may be described as a "man of action"

Cash: Trump a 'man of action' and Coalition would have 'exact same attitude'
Shadow attorney general Michaelia Cash has called Donald Trump a "man of action" and indicated a Peter Dutton government would operate with the "exact same attitude" if elected.

5215

Daniel Hurst @danielhurst.bsky.social · 13/01/2025

And Campbell Newman www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/que...

Former Queensland LNP leader Campbell Newman in front of a sign saying "It's time to Get Queensland Back on Track"

121