RSS
Antisemitism Rises to Shocking Levels in Australia — But the Media Doesn’t Care
Arsonists heavily damaged the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne, Australia, on Dec. 6, 2024. Photo: Screenshot
The phrase gets repeated often — especially as antisemitism surges in the wake of Hamas’ October 7, 2023, terror attacks: The Jews are the proverbial “canary in the coal mine.”
The Jewish people have long been a bellwether for rising extremism and broader threats to society. When antisemitism takes root, other forms of hatred and bigotry inevitably follow, leaving other minorities just as vulnerable.
Australia, however, appears determined to ignore this history lesson.
Since the Israel-Hamas war broke out, the country has seen an unprecedented wave of antisemitism. More than 2,000 incidents were reported between October 2023 and September 2024 — a staggering fourfold increase from the previous year. And that number only reflects official reports; the uncounted cases of harassment, intimidation, and online vitriol push the real figure far higher.
If Australia is the mine, then its canaries are screeching. But instead of taking action, the country’s institutions, from government to law enforcement, seem more interested in pretending the problem isn’t real.
Take Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. This month, he held a press briefing to announce the findings of a national task force — formed in December 2024, more than a year after antisemitic violence had already spiraled out of control — to establish a database tracking such incidents.
The task force received more than 160 reports in just a few weeks, yet despite this flood of evidence, Albanese had a rather curious take on what was behind the rise of violent attacks on Jews.
According to the prime minister, some of these antisemitic crimes are being carried out by “people who don’t have a particular issue, aren’t motivated by an ideology, but are paid actors.”
Who’s paying them? Unclear. Where’s the evidence? Also unclear.
So, by Albanese’s logic, Jews in Australia aren’t facing a surge in homegrown antisemitism — they’re being targeted by mysterious, foreign-paid operatives. The cars set ablaze outside a building owned by a Jewish community leader on January 17? The work of a hired outsider, apparently. The Sydney synagogue defaced with swastikas on January 10? No particular ideology at play there, and certainly not Jew-hatred.
It’s a convenient way to sidestep responsibility. Because acknowledging the reality of antisemitism in Australia would mean confronting some uncomfortable truths — namely, just how widespread and deeply embedded the problem has become.
And at the heart of this denialism sits the Australian media.
There’s an unspoken arrangement at play: the media doesn’t press too hard, allowing officials to feign concern without actually doing much, while the government, in turn, enjoys the luxury of unchallenged complacency. The result?
A climate where even violent, explicitly antisemitic attacks are treated as vague disturbances rather than the ideological threats they so clearly are.
Gaslighting Australian Jews
Over the past year, the Australian media’s hostility toward Israel, and its indifference — if not outright contempt– for Jewish concerns over rising antisemitism have become impossible to ignore. Several incidents since October 2023 have drawn international condemnation, forcing an uncomfortable spotlight onto the problem.
Mass Doxxing Attack
In January 2024, more than 600 Jewish academics, artists, and writers in Australia were subjected to a mass doxxing attack. Their personal details were leaked online after a private WhatsApp chat was downloaded and shared.
The leak originated from New York Times reporter Natasha Frost, who admitted to downloading and sharing 900 pages of messages from the closed group, which had been formed after October 7 to provide support amid rising antisemitism.
The Times later claimed it had taken “appropriate action” against Frost — without elaborating.
Frost insists she only shared the chat with one person — the subject of a story she was working on. That story was thought to be a January 23 New York Times piece about journalist Antoinette Lattouf, whose ABC Radio Sydney contract was terminated over anti-Israel social media postings. Lattouf is now suing ABC for unfair dismissal.
Not long before the piece was published, Frost left the WhatsApp group — and soon after, details from the chat began leaking online. The 900-page transcript was accompanied by the “Zio600” list, a spreadsheet meticulously crafted to isolate and target “Zionists.”
Is this what it takes for @nytimes to discover that unprofessional reporting on Israel leads to real life consequences for Jews all over the world? https://t.co/YBLTqFboDe
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) August 18, 2024
The harassment campaign was swift and vicious. Gift shop owner Joshua Moshe reported receiving anonymous calls branding him and his wife as baby killers and genocidal maniacs.
Frost and The New York Times insist that she never intended for the chat’s contents to spread. Yet, the outcome is undeniable: a journalist at one of the world’s most influential newspapers facilitated a data leak targeting Jews, who were then subjected to threats.
To this day, The New York Times remains tight-lipped about what “appropriate action” against Frost actually entailed, while she continues to be employed at the outlet.
“Where’s the Jews?”
In February 2024, the Australian media extensively covered a police review of an October 2023 incident that had previously made global headlines. Just days after Hamas’ October 7 attacks, a pro-Palestinian mob gathered outside the Sydney Opera House, lighting flares and chanting slogans reported as antisemitic, all while the Australian police stood by, seemingly indifferent.
One video appeared to capture them chanting “Gas the Jews.”
Four months later, Australian media outlets eagerly covered a police review — in seemingly more detail than the original incident itself. News.com.au reported that a police forensic analysis of video and audio from the protest found “no evidence a potentially criminal antisemitic phrase was used.”
ABC News ran with a headline that practically framed the mob as vindicated: “Protesters welcome police finding on ‘gas the Jews’ chant at Opera House rally.”
Except the police “forensic” investigation ignored witness statements and instead determined that what had actually been chanted was “Where’s the Jews?” along with other antisemitic phrases.
In short, rather than explicitly calling for Jewish extermination, the mob was actually implicitly shouting a call to hunt Jews down, which is clearly no better than the other chant.
And yet the Australian media’s framing of the police findings was almost triumphant, with headlines misleadingly suggesting no antisemitic chants had been heard at all.
Publicly-Funded Broadcaster Cleared
In October 2024, the ABC news outlet’s Ombudsman’s Office — tasked with upholding the taxpayer-funded broadcaster’s supposed standards of accuracy and impartiality — released its findings on a May 2024 article that described a Hamas rocket attack on Tel Aviv as a “show of resilience.”
The Ombudsman concluded that this phrasing did not breach the corporation’s guidelines, stating, “We do not believe the use of resilience represents lauding, glamorizing or celebrating Hamas’ actions.”
In a ruling that reads like satire, the Ombudsman elaborated: “By definition, resilience means the capacity to withstand or to recover quickly from difficulties. After a sustained offensive from Israel over months, in firing this latest barrage of rockets, Hamas had demonstrated its continued capacity to launch rocket attacks against Israel.”
So, according to the ABC, when a proscribed terrorist organization fires rockets at civilian populations, it’s simply demonstrating its ability to “recover quickly from difficulties.” One wonders if the Ombudsman would extend the same generous definition to other acts of indiscriminate violence.
Calling Out Australian Media Bias
In the eight months following Hamas’ October 7 massacre in Israel, five of Australia’s major news outlets — The Age, News.com.au, The Australian, ABC News, and The Sydney Morning Herald — published thousands of reports on the war. A data analysis by HonestReporting found that these outlets referenced Gaza an average of nearly 20 times per day in their news coverage.
And these are just the national publications. Australia’s media landscape is vast, with countless smaller news outlets and local publications also shaping public discourse.
HonestReporting has taken an active role in holding the Australian media to account. Since the war began, we have secured numerous corrections from major outlets, including ABC News, News.com.au, and The Sydney Morning Herald.
Australia’s public broadcaster, @abcnews has issued the following editor’s note and corrected a serious error after we contacted them.
If only ABC took as much time doing due diligence when writing its articles as it appears to have done fact-checking our complaint. https://t.co/OEvoYoDQts pic.twitter.com/JaVH7e6qmF
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) February 1, 2025
However, monitoring Australia’s media is a mammoth task. While HonestReporting is using the latest tools to track bias, we continue to rely on our readers to flag instances of misinformation and unfair reporting.
Australia’s media helped fuel this crisis—and now, instead of confronting it, it’s making excuses. Enough is enough.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post Antisemitism Rises to Shocking Levels in Australia — But the Media Doesn’t Care first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran to Deny UN Inspectors Access to Nuclear Sites, Top Lawmaker Says, Amid Rising Pressure for New Deal
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi arrives on the opening day of the agency’s quarterly Board of Governors meeting at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria, Nov. 20, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Lisa Leutner
Iran will not grant access to its nuclear facilities during next week’s visit by a delegation from the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), amid growing international pressure to reach a nuclear deal and avoid new sanctions, according to a top Iranian lawmaker.
On Monday, the head of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of Iran’s parliament, Ebrahim Azizi, confirmed that the visiting IAEA team will only be authorized to hold “technical and expert-level talks” with Iranian officials and experts.
“According to the laws passed by parliament, Iran will not let physical access to its nuclear facilities under any circumstances,” Azizi said in a press conference reported by Iranian state-run media.
“No inspector from the IAEA team or any other foreign organization will be allowed to be present at our country’s nuclear sites,” the Iranian lawmaker continued.
In June, the Iranian parliament voted to suspend cooperation with the IAEA “until the safety and security of [the country’s] nuclear activities can be guaranteed.”
At the time, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi attributed the decision to IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi’s alleged bias against Tehran and a recent resolution accusing Iran of failing to cooperate with the UN nuclear watchdog over alleged “undeclared nuclear activities.”
“The IAEA and its Director-General are fully responsible for this sordid state of affairs,” Araghchi said in a post on X.
Grossi “directly facilitated the adoption of a politically-motivated resolution against Iran by the IAEA [Board of Governors] as well as the unlawful Israeli and US bombings of Iranian nuclear sites,” he continued.
During a press conference on Monday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei explained that next week’s visit by IAEA officials to Iran is intended to discuss the “method of interaction” with the agency.
“We are facing exceptional circumstances, as the facilities of a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] have been illegally attacked by two nuclear-armed regimes,” Baghaei said.
“Unfortunately, the IAEA did not remain impartial, failed to condemn the attacks, and instead issued a report that provided a kind of political ground for making excuses,” the Iranian diplomat continued.
In June, Israel and the US bombed Iranian nuclear sites in an effort to stop the regime from building nuclear weapons. Iran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
The UN nuclear watchdog’s upcoming visit comes as Iran faces growing international pressure to resume negotiations on its nuclear program.
Last month, Tehran made its first attempt at direct talks with European powers since Israel, with the support of the US, launched an airstrike campaign targeting the country’s nuclear facilities and ballistic-missile capabilities.
The United Kingdom, France, and Germany — collectively known as the E3 — have previously warned they would reinstate UN sanctions on Tehran if no new agreement is reached by the end of August.
The sanctions were originally lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal — known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — which imposed temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for large-scale sanctions relief.
Although the United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018 under President Donald Trump’s first administration, Iran and the three European nations have continued to uphold the deal.
Under the UN Security Council resolution implementing the nuclear accord, international sanctions could be reimposed on Iran through a “snapback” mechanism that would take about 30 days.
As for the United States, Iran has insisted that Washington must compensate Tehran for the losses incurred during the recent 12-day war with Israel to pave the way for renewed negotiations.
However, Araghchi made clear that a deal would remain off the table as long as Trump continued to demand that Iran commit to zero uranium enrichment.
RSS
US Sen. Cory Booker Refuses to Endorse Zohran Mamdani for NYC Mayor
US Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ). Photo: Reuters / Rebecca Cook.
US Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) declined to endorse New York Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani in his bid for New York City mayor, underscoring a simmering divide within the Democratic party over whether to embrace the anti-Israel politician.
Booker, a former presidential candidate known for his progressive rhetoric and background in community activism, has often walked a careful line when it comes to the party’s internal divisions. When asked last week by CNN reporter Manu Raju whether he would support Mamdani, a far-left democratic socialist, Booker said, “I have learned a long time ago, to let New York politics be New York politics. We have enough challenges in New Jersey.”
Citing heated gubernatorial and legislative races, Booker said his energy will be devoted to his home state of New Jersey before adding, “New York City, I love you. You’re my neighbor. You’re about 10 miles from where I live. You guys figure out your elections. I’m going to be focused on mine.”
Booker’s response came after he dodged an initial question from Raju asking if the senator would support Mamdani, who won the New York City Democratic mayoral in June.
“So, you and I are going to have this conversation, and I’m going to say to you one day, I told you so,” Booker responded. “This is not a left-right issue. It really isn’t. It is an authoritarian, versus people who want pragmatic government that makes a difference in the lives of the American people. I’m one of these people that says the lines that divide us in America are not nearly as strong as the ties that bind us.”
“Big corporations, people want to keep our eyes on the screen, want to pit us against each other and tell us how much we should hate each other,” he continued. “I’m sorry, the left-right lens is not the right lens to look at this right now. Right now, it is, can we get back to the pragmatic work of governing?”
Booker’s refusal to endorse Mandani broader tensions within the Democratic party over the rising influence of its far-left, progressive wing, particularly among younger lawmakers who have been outspoken critics of US military aid to Israel. Mamdani, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, has drawn national attention for his calls to end what he describes as unconditional support for the Israeli government, a position that has attracted both praise from progressive activists and backlash from pro-Israel groups and establishment Democrats.
Booker, who has long positioned himself as a supporter of Israel while also advocating for Palestinian rights, has grown increasingly cautious in recent years about aligning with candidates whose positions might alienate key constituencies. Despite the growing anti-Israel sentiment within the Democratic base, Booker has remained outspoken about the need to secure the release of the remaining hostages in Gaza. Booker regularly wears a yellow ribbon pin on the lapel of his suit jacket as a sign of his support for the hostages.
Many observers have argued that the New York City mayoral race, though local, is a proxy battle for the future of the Democratic party, with some claiming that Mamdani’s blend of left-wing economic policies and anti-Zionism are reflective of the party’s increasingly progressive base.
Mamdani, the 33‑year‑old state assemblymember and proud democratic socialist, defeated former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other candidates in a lopsided first‑round win in the city’s Democratic primary for mayor, notching approximately 43.5 percent of first‑choice votes compared to Cuomo’s 36.4 percent.
A little-known politician before this year’s primary campaign, Mamdani is an outspoken supporter of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination.
Mamdani has also repeatedly refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, falsely suggesting the country does not offer “equal rights” for all its citizens, and promised to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York.
Mamdani also defended the phrase “globalize the intifada”— which references previous periods of sustained Palestinian terrorism against Jews and Israels and has been widely interpreted as a call to expand political violence — by invoking the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during World War II. In response, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum repudiated the mayoral candidate, calling his comments “outrageous and especially offensive to [Holocaust] survivors.”
RSS
Harvard President Denies Looming $500 Million Deal With Trump to Restore Federal Funding: Report
Harvard University President Alan Garber speaks during the 374th Commencement exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 29, 2025. Photo: Reuters Connect via Brian Snyder
Harvard University President Alan Garber has told faculty that he will not settle the institution’s dispute with the Trump administration by shelling out $500 million, the Harvard Crimson reported on Monday, contradicting a New York Times article which claimed that the move is impending.
Rather, Harvard has resolve to continue on fighting the federal government in court, the Crimson said, even as it faces a $1 billion shortfall caused by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the confiscation of $3 billion in taxpayer-funded research grants and contracts previously awarded to the university. Amid this cash crunch Harvard has resorted to leveraging its immense wealth to borrow exorbitant sums of money.
In March it issued over $450 million in bonds as “part of an ongoing contingency planning for a range of financial circumstances.” It offered another $750 million in bonds to investors in April, a sale that is being managed by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
According to the Crimson, Garber insists that the Times report is erroneous.
“In a conversation with one faculty member, [he] said that the suggestion that Harvard was open to paying $500 million is ‘false’ and claimed that the figure was apparently leaked to the press by White House officials,” the Crimson said, noting that the Times believes its reporting is on the mark. “In any discussions, Garber reportedly said, the university is treating academic freedom as nonnegotiable.”
Garber’s apparent assurances to faculty that the university will not concede to Trump for financial relief comes as it takes conciliatory steps that seem aimed at reversing an impression that it is doctrinally far left, as well as anti-Zionist. In July, it announced new partnerships with Israeli academic institutions and shuttered its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices, transferring their staff to other sections of the university. These moves came after it “paused” a partnership in March with a higher education institution located in the West Bank. Some reports, according to the Crimson, suggest that Harvard may even found a “new conservative research institute” in any deal with the Trump administration.
Other Ivy League schools have made similar steps while resolving their funding disputes with the US federal government.
On Wednesday, Brown University announced that it agreed to pay $50 million and enact a series of reforms put forth by the Trump administration to settle claims involving alleged sex discrimination and antisemitism. The government is rewarding Brown’s propitiating by restoring access to $510 million in federal research grants and contracts it impounded.
Per the agreement, shared by university president Christina Paxson, Brown will provide women athletes locker rooms based on sex, not one’s self-chosen gender identity — a monumental concession by a university that is reputed as one of the most progressive in the country — and adopt the Trump administration’s definition of “male” and “female,” as articulated in a January 2025 executive order issued by Trump. Additionally, Brown has agreed not to “perform gender reassignment surgery or prescribe puberty blockers or hormones to any minor child for the purpose of aligning the child’s appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex.”
Regarding campus antisemitism, the agreement calls for Brown University to reduce anti-Jewish bias on campus by forging ties with local Jewish Day Schools, launching “renewed partnerships with Israeli academics and national Jewish organizations,” and boosting support for its Judaic Studies program. Brown must also conduct a “climate survey” of Jewish students to collect raw data of their campus experiences.
Only days ago, Columbia University agreed to pay over $200 million to settle claims that it exposed Jewish students, faculty, and staff to antisemitic discrimination and harassment — a deal which secures the release of billions of dollars the Trump administration impounded to pressure the institution to address the issue.
US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon commented on the resolution, saying it is a “seismic shift in our nation’s fight to hold institutions that accept American taxpayer dollars accountable for antisemitic discrimination and harassment.”
Claiming a generational achievement for the conservative movement, which has argued for years that progressive bias in higher education is the cause of anti-Zionist antisemitism on college campuses, she added that Columbia has agreed to “discipline student offenders for severe disruptions of campus operations” and “eliminate race preferences from their hiring and mission practicers, and DEI programs that distribute benefits and advantages based on race.”
“Columbia’s reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to retain the confidence of the American public by renting their commitment to truth-seeking, merit, and civil debate,” McMahon continued. “I believe they will ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.”
As Harvard debates its future, it continues to be a theater of an unrelenting debate on the Israel-Hamas war and the US-Israel relationship. On Saturday, pro-Hamas protesters instigated their arrests by local law enforcement during an unauthorized demonstration at Harvard Square.
“At least three protesters were pushed to the ground and handcuffed by police officers,” the Harvard Crimson reported on Sunday. “Several protesters were seen pouring water on their eyes, which were red and apparently irritated by a chemical agent.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.