On July 29, 2025, a national poll in Australia delivered a deeply unsettling message: perhaps the “silent majority” that we believed in for so long — those decent, fair-minded Australians who would reject antisemitism when it crossed a line — was never really there to begin with.

The survey revealed that just 24% of Australians hold a positive view of Jews, while 28% express negative views, and the rest are indifferent or unsure.

This is not the fringe — it is the center. And it lands after two years of unrelenting escalation, during which antisemitic incidents in Australia have surged by over 300%. Synagogues have been firebombed. Jewish businesses have been attacked. Marches in our cities have featured chants glorifying terror and calling for the annihilation of the Jewish State.

For the past two years, we’ve watched the unthinkable become normalized — and still, the silence has persisted. We reassured ourselves that when things got bad, or worse, Australians — quiet, pragmatic, egalitarian — would draw a line. We believed that behind the chaos of social media and the radicalism of campus protests, there was a steady, principled middle who would never let hate take hold. But perhaps we were wrong. Or perhaps we simply misread the signs.

We saw moments that encouraged hope: political leaders condemning antisemitism after high-profile incidents; universities adopting or referencing definitions of antisemitism — though often watered down, selectively applied, or lacking enforcement; and a few faith and community leaders standing shoulder to shoulder with Jewish communities in symbolic gestures of unity. We mistook these signals as proof that the mainstream was with us — that the loudest voices did not represent the majority.

But those signs were often just that — symbolic. Many condemnations were performative. Institutional policies were rarely enforced. And while we heard reassurances from officials that “most Australians reject hate,” we now know they didn’t have the data to back it up.

So why did we believe?

The truth is that the idea of a silent majority is emotionally powerful. It reassures us that we are not alone. It suggests that while antisemitism may be loud, decency is quietly stronger. It gives us permission to believe in the goodness of our neighbors, even when the evidence is thin. It tells us that democracy will self-correct, that morality will prevail in the end.

But increasingly, that belief feels more like a coping mechanism than a reality. We’ve clung to it without data, without proof, and — if we’re honest — without election results to support it. Because the alternative is terrifying: the alternative is that the center is not asleep, but absent.

And if the silent majority doesn’t exist — if it never did — what then?

It means that antisemitism isn’t just being ignored; it’s being tolerated. It means that when politicians offer symbolic recognition of a Palestinian state while Hamas still holds hostages and preaches genocide, they are not defying their electorate — they may be reflecting it. It means that when university encampments promote terror and intimidate Jewish students, and administrators do nothing, it’s not cowardice — it may be calculated silence. It means that we are not surrounded by quiet allies, but by people who either don’t care or don’t know.

It also means that we can no longer wait for “them” to speak up.

This isn’t just happening in Australia. Across the Western world, the same pattern is emerging. In Canada, antisemitism on campuses is surging, and the government now flirts with symbolic recognition of a Palestinian state — not as part of peace negotiations, but as a political signal. In Ireland, Spain, Norway, and the UK, similar moves have rewarded those who glorify terror while ignoring those who seek dialogue. In the United States, antisemitism reached record highs last year, with Jewish students and communities increasingly ostracized for daring to speak the truth.

These are not isolated developments — they are part of a deeper pattern: the moral center is shrinking, and the hateful fringes are being normalized.

At StandWithUs Australia, we fight back with facts, with education, and with pride. We equip students and communities to speak up for truth, to push back against hatred. But we cannot do this alone. We are a small community. And now, more than ever, we need others to stand publicly — not silently — with us.

Because if the silent majority was ever real, now is the time to speak. And if it remains silent now, then we must confront the hardest truth of all: that it was never there to begin with.

In that case, the path forward changes.

We must stop seeking quiet affirmation and instead build loud, unignorable support. We must shift from trusting that others will step up, to ensuring that we are strong enough to lead. We must teach, advocate, organize, and call out moral cowardice for what it is — whether it comes from universities, governments, media, or community leaders.

Because if we’ve learned anything from the past two years, it’s that silence isn’t safety.

And comfort, no matter how convincing, is not the same as courage.

Michael Gencher is executive director StandWithUs Australia, an international nonpartisan education organization that supports Israel and fights antisemitism.

Facts matter — especially when they involve blood libels and mobs with pitchforks over the latest news from Gaza.

The original blood libel, for centuries, was something akin to the “Jews make matzah with the blood of children,” and other horrific things, which makes the current allegation in 2025 of starvation of children in Gaza into an equally horrific act. It could be modern blood libel, except we collectively can’t seem to tell fact from fiction at this point.

Is there a grain of truth in the hideous photographs of starving children in Gaza? Are the facts on the ground, as the media would have you believe, as awful as they look ? I asked myself this as I found myself swimming in photographic-based horror. The children need to eat, this is clear.

In reality, there appear to be multiple factors and bad actors to blame on the current round of hideous accusations. There are the letters from various rabbis, there are the doctors within Gaza, and then there’s the UN, all declaring a horrible famine and with Israel being accused as the culprit.

Never mind that the UN is not properly delivering food aid, that terrorists on the ground are attacking and robbing trucks, Hamas terrorists are shooting civilians, and many other truths. Ignore The New York Times article declaring Hamas “not guilty” of stealing aid — despite serious evidence to the contrary.

Israel is the villain in every single story around the globe.

We’re told to accept the venomous narrative without question, and not to notice that the child in the viral starving photo has cerebral palsy and is suffering from hypoxia. No one wants to examine the facts — which also might implicate Hamas as co-creators of the despicable debacle.

No one in the online mob wants to point out that photos of children are being exploited based on medical conditions. None of these attacking articles mention the loaded aid trucks that the UN chooses not to deliver. Yes, Netanyahu’s siege is a direct cause of the famine. Yes, the UN has a part and responsibility to deliver food from the aid trucks.  Yes, Hamas has been stealing aid. Yes, Hamas members appear rather chubby and are definitely not starving. Yes, Israel has a blockade. Yes, Hamas also has done a thousand other things to facilitate this famine, including refusing a ceasefire just last week, which again would stop the fighting and bring in aid.

Israel even allows aid to enter and be delivered from the air, and what does the media immediately do? The media calls it “Grotesque” in headlines over the weekend. The media condemns Israel no matter if they let in aid, or don’t let in aid.

The media condemns Israel now for allowing air drops, because “the airdrop might hit someone.”

The media bias is so obvious and so sickening at this point, because every single story, every single article is written to paint the nation of Israel as the evil villain.

Rarely if ever, does anyone ask, how are the numbers verified ? Who is in charge of delivering the aid, why is Hamas not being held accountable? Why did the UN not choose delivery routes for all the trucks ? Why isn’t Egypt opening its gate and delivering aid?

The double standard is utterly appalling. No matter the facts, no matter Israel’s efforts to negotiate a ceasefire, to offer aid, anything and everything is condemned by a rabid crowd who shrugs and says, “who cares who is to blame” before again condemning and demonizing Israel.

It’s become a complete waste of time to even bother writing or speaking with the anti-Israel crowd online, they don’t want to hear anything. “So what, who cares?” Because the truth be told, they only want to demonize Israel. If there are other factors such as the UN refusing to coordinate with the Israeli government, then the online mobs with pitchforks don’t want to even consider it. The double standard, the blind eye towards all the other factors contributing to the situation, will never be contemplated by the angry mob.

These same people don’t mention horrific conditions — and worse food insecurity situations all across the globe — because Israel can’t be blamed. We don’t know how much is true or false because there is so much villainizing, now aided by AI and photographs from other conflicts around the world, used without verification and with impunity.

Nothing will stop the mobs with pitchforks, even when the food situation improves. They don’t care about any of the other factors contributing to it.  You will never hear their voices raised for the starving children of Yemen, Sudan, or anywhere else — because they only raise their voices to villainize the state of Israel.

It’s impossible to ignore the hatred right in the open. The angry online mob only wants to point fingers and scream; they won’t care or look at themselves when their poisonous words become actions on the ground that result in the murder of Jewish people thousands of miles away. Instead, they will feel justified — and that is a very dangerous thing for the entire world.

Alix Kahn is a writer of essays, poetry, short stories and more.  

When terror becomes diplomacy’s last option, how does a democratic state retain its moral compass?

This is the cruel paradox confronting Israel today.

Since October 7, 2023, when Hamas unleashed its brutal and barbaric assault, the Jewish State has found itself at war, not only on the battlefield but in boardrooms, media rooms, and behind closed diplomatic doors.

Among the countless tragedies that followed, one issue continues to haunt both politicians and ordinary citizens alike: What should Israel do about the hostages?

Approximately 50 people — both living and dead — remain captive in Gaza, used as bargaining chips by a terrorist regime that thrives on civilian suffering. Hamas is not just holding people; it is holding the Israeli national conscience hostage.

Israel’s founding ethos has always been to bring every citizen and soldier home. But how do you uphold that sacred duty without empowering your enemy?

The world loves slogans: “We do not negotiate with terrorists.” But reality is a murkier battlefield than Hollywood or soundbites will admit.

Israel is not alone in this grey zone. The United States has spoken with the Taliban. European governments have discreetly paid ransoms. Red Cross convoys and Vatican mediators operate in shadows where diplomacy officially cannot.

So why is Israel judged so harshly when it faces the same impossible choices?

Because Israel is expected to act with perfect ethics even when surrounded by terrorists and murderers.

Despite popular assumptions, there is no binding international law that prohibits negotiation with terrorist groups. The United Nations urges states not to legitimize or finance terrorism. Hostage-taking is criminalized. But negotiation itself? That falls into a murky, political no-man’s land.

That ambiguity leaves countries to make deeply personal calculations. And for Israel, the calculus is always emotional, often painful, and rarely applauded.

Israel’s history offers stark examples. The 2011 Gilad Shalit exchange, in which one Israeli soldier was traded for over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, many with blood on their hands, split the nation’s soul.

Some hailed it as a triumph of humanity. Others feared it was a costly encouragement to Hamas to kidnap again.

They were both right.

In practice, most governments do negotiate with terrorists. They just do it through third parties — such as Qatar, Egypt, Norway, and others. These mediators offer plausible deniability and soften the political fallout.

It’s a game of shadows: moral clarity sacrificed on the altar of realpolitik.

Israel has played this game too. Sometimes it succeeds in bringing people home. Sometimes it pays a terrifying price. But unlike authoritarian regimes, it has to answer to its people and to the families who refuse to accept “collateral damage” as a final verdict.

What makes the Israeli dilemma unique is its combination of vulnerability and moral expectation:

• A democracy surrounded by terror groups.
• A nation that values human life more than most of its enemies do.
• A state expected to fight like a Western power but judged like an empire

This is the Israeli paradox: being moral in an immoral world.

Is it wrong to speak with terrorists? Probably. Is it wrong to leave your citizens behind? Absolutely. Is there a path that avoids both sins? Tragically, not always.

So Israel walks the tightrope, every step scrutinized by a hostile international community and a grieving, demanding public.

Each decision is weighed not just in strategy, but in souls. In the faces of kidnapped children. In the eyes of mothers who refuse to stop waiting.

And while activists scream slogans and foreign leaders posture, the truth remains: In war, sometimes, there are no good choices — only the least terrible ones.

Sabine Sterk is the CEO of “Time to Stand Up for Israel.”