By Margot Staunton of RNZ Pacific

Mahendra Chaudhry — a former Fiji prime minister removed from power and held hostage during the 2000 coup — wants George Speight to name those behind the racist takeover.

The 84-year-old Labour Party leader, who became Fiji’s first prime minister of Indian heritage in 1999, made the comment after Speight — the coup frontman — appeared before the Constitutional Review Commission last week.

Speight emerged into the political limelight in a formal suit and glasses, after spending 24 years in a maximum security jail for treason. The ex-convict has called on the perpetrators of the country’s past political upheavals to own up, saying “if you want redemption, you have to confess”.

• READ MORE:  Former coup leader re-enters Fiji political debate with challenge to immunity and national identity
• Fiji will remain unstable while Indigenous people are economically sidelined, says ex-coup convict
• Other Fiji coup reports

However, Chaudhry told RNZ Pacific it is up to Speight to name the co-conspirators involved in the failed takeover.

“He has the answers, he knows, because he’s always been regarded as the frontman. There were people who were behind him but they remain unidentified to this day,” Chaudhry said.

“He has himself said that those who were associated with him are roaming around freely.”

Need for closure
The veteran politician said many Fijians still want to know who the masterminds were behind the coup.

“He [Speight] can help bring about closure to the whole episode because it still remains open, people don’t said know really who was behind the coup,” he said.

“Only he and [Josefa] Nata know, but they are hesitant, they are reluctant to name them.”

Nata, who was a public relations man at the time, became one of the faces of the coup along with Speight, and has admitted he played a key role as a negotiator.

Fiji has been rocked by four coups since gaining independence in 1970. The first two, in May and September 1987, were led by then-military lieutenant-colonel Sitiveni Rabuka, who is the current prime minister.

In 1999, Chaudhry was sworn in as the country’s first Indo-Fijian prime minister, but the Labour Party leader’s election stoked racial tension in Fiji.

A year later, Speight led rebel soldiers from the military’s Counter-Revolutionary Warfare Unit in an armed takeover of the then-coalition government. Chaudhry and his government were held hostage for 56 days.

He later pleaded guilty to treason and received the death penalty, which was later commuted to life imprisonment. However, he was granted a presidential pardon and released from prison on 19 September 2024.

‘Bigger issue at stake’
Nata, who also spent 24 years in jail for treason before his release in December 2023, has declined to name those who orchestrated the coup “for the sake of the families involved”.

However Chaudhry said there was a bigger issue at stake.

“The families would have supported these people when they were involved in the coup, whether they deserve sympathy I don’t know,” he said.

“It’s a question of the other people, they should be thinking about those who really suffered the pain and anguish of the coup.”

Chaudhry has his own views about who the perpetrators are but said no-one would believe him.

“We know that it was our parliamentary opposition who were involved in the coup because they wanted to get back into power,” Chaudhry said.

“So it was them and their associates, but I cannot name them.”

Rabuka did not serve as the leader of the opposition after the 1999 election, before he resigned to chair the country’s highest indigenous body, the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC).

“We know that the GCC, in meetings which were held subsequent to the coup, were in support of [the 2000 coup],” Chaudhry said.

Chaudhry defends Labour govt
Meanwhile, Speight told the commission during his submission that the events and policies that unfolded during the Chaudhry-led government’s first year in office ultimately led to his actions.

Responding on Wednesday, Chaudhry told RNZ Pacific that Speight’s explanation had no factual basis.

“It is clear that his opinion was not shared by the majority of Fiji citizens at the time,” he said.

He cited a Tebbutt-Times poll conducted in December 1999, which showed his approval rating at 62 percent and a disapproval rating of 15 percent.

He said an editorial in The Fiji Times at the time described the result as “a remarkable performance — and a ringing endorsement by the public of his performance as prime minister”, adding that it was the highest rating ever recorded in a Tebbutt-Times poll.

Chaudhry said that in just one year in office, the coalition government had introduced a series of socio-economic reforms, including removing VAT from a range of staple food items, while achieving a record 9.6 percent economic growth rate and strong business and investor confidence.

Race-fuelled coup
He argued that the campaign against his government in the lead-up to the coup was fuelled by racial politics rather than public dissatisfaction.

“It is well-recorded that the anti-Chaudhry agitation whipped up over the next few months [before the coup] came from ethno-nationalist propaganda and deliberate disinformation spread by the opposition and others, some of whom were driven by greed,” he said.

“Race was used as a weapon to fuel emotions and discredit the government.”

Chaudhry said this was why the Fiji Labour Party urged the commission during its submission to consider constitutional and legislative safeguards to prevent the exploitation of ethnicity for political gain.

Speight has never apologised to Chaudhry in person or asked him for forgiveness.

When asked if he was prepared to forgive Speight, Chaudhry replied: “I can’t answer that”.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/16/race-was-used-as-a-weapon-fiji-coup-frontman-urged-to-reveal-backers/

COMMENTARY: By Jeremy Rose

Late last year, the British government suppressed a report that contained warnings from its intelligence agencies that climate change could drive mass migration and trigger a nuclear war in Asia.

A copy of the report, obtained by The Times, warned of collapsing ecosystems potentially triggering acts of eco-terrorism, and the possibility of NATO being drawn into conflicts over remaining breadbaskets in Russia and Ukraine.

It said: “Forests in Canada and Russia might pass a tipping point by 2030, as might glaciers in the Himalayas that fed rivers on which two billion people depended.”

• READ MORE: Suppressed climate report warned of mass migration and nuclear war
• New Zealand: Defence assessment on climate change and security released
• Palau’s President warns of rising nuclear anxiety in the Pacific and other Chinese missile test reports

In Australia, a 2022 climate change threat assessment by the Office of National Intelligence was described as “terrifying” by Senator David Pocock.

Similarly to the UK, the Albanese government has refused to release the full report.

A 2018 New Zealand Defence Force assessment declared climate change “one of the most significant security threats of our time, and one that is already having adverse impacts both at home and in New Zealand’s neighbourhood.”

New Zealand’s “neighbourhood” — otherwise known as the South Pacific — is on the frontlines of climate change, with low-lying atoll nations like Tuvalu and Kiribati predicted to be uninhabitable by the end of the century.

Pacific in forefront
Pacific Island nations have been at the forefront of efforts to force the world — particularly the rich world — to act.

Last year’s historic advisory ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which found that countries have a legally binding obligation to address climate change, was initiated by Vanuatu.

The contrast between New Zealand and Australia’s reactions to the court ruling and the existential threat faced by our neighbours, versus their response last week to China’s ballistic missile test which landed in the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone, is instructive.

Vanuatu Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu has criticised both New Zealand and Australia for continuing with fossil fuel exploration and warned they could find themselves in court on the wrong side of the ICJ ruling.

New Zealand is ranked 44th on the Climate Change Performance Index, down from 28th in 2021. Australia is 56th of the 63 countries (plus the European Union) included in the index.

When it comes to dealing with the existential threat of climate change, both countries are laggards.

But when it comes to updating their military hardware for interoperability with US forces in the new Cold War with China, they’re keen to be seen at the front of the pack.

‘Biggest peacetime increase’
Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles has boasted that the country is seeing the “biggest peacetime increase in defence spending in our nation’s history”.

The defence budget is projected to hit A$96.6 billion by 2033, or 3 percent of GDP.

New Zealand has committed to doubling its defence spending from the current 1 percent to 2 percent in the next eight years.

Its recent purchase of five US-built MH-60R Seahawk helicopters, costing NZ$2.6 billion, was made with the expressed intention of making New Zealand’s armed forces interoperable with the US military.

Officially, New Zealand’s only military ally is Australia, but with its commitment to interoperability, regular military secondments, and participation in joint exercises, nuclear-free New Zealand is a card-carrying member of the Western alliance. (Former Labour prime minister Jacinda Ardern spoke to a NATO conference in Madrid in 2022.)

Both Australia and New Zealand are justifying the billions of dollars being spent on high-end killing machines by hyping up the so-called China threat.

Leaders on both sides of the Tasman were quick to pounce on last week’s ballistic missile test by China as evidence of a growing military threat.

Unacceptable, unwelcome
New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said it was unacceptable, unwelcome, and concerning.

“This is an intercontinental ballistic missile test, the second that we’ve seen in recent years, having not had one in the region for 40 years, from China,” RNZ reported him saying.

“We are living in a region that is proudly nuclear free … we don’t want to see increasing militarisation in our region.”

What was left unsaid is that, according to The New York Times, the US tests between five and 10 Minuteman missiles every year, and both New Zealand and Australia are ramping up purchases of military hardware — massively increasing the militarisation of the region.

Australia, a signatory of the Treaty of Rarotonga, which established the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone, has three nuclear-powered submarines on order at a cost of more than A$300 billion.

If Prime Minister Luxon was truly concerned about the increasing militarisation of the South Pacific, he would not be expressing interest in New Zealand joining Australia and Fiji in the “Ocean of Peace Alliance” announced last week.

Peace needs climate justice
Following the announcement of Fiji’s first-ever military alliance, the Pacific Elders Group — whose membership includes former heads of state — released a strongly worded statement reiterating its position that climate change is the region’s most urgent concern:

“An Ocean of Peace cannot be built on a narrow security agenda. Peace cannot be separated from climate justice or from the forces that produce insecurity in Pacific lives: climate change, fossil fuel dependence, extractive industries, militarisation, nuclear legacies, gendered violence and the denial of self-determination. These are the challenges that any genuine Pacific peace agenda must confront.”

Sadly, New Zealand and Australia’s actions suggest they are more committed to militarisation than climate action.

Last month, the New Zealand Defence Force announced its first Harpoon missile launch from a P-8A Poseidon aircraft during a joint military exercise with the armed forces of the US, Australia, Canada, and Japan in the Philippine Sea.

The two missiles fired — estimated cost between NZ$3 million to NZ$6 million — were supplied to New Zealand by Australia.

Millions of dollars blown on sinking a decommissioned warship that could have gone to, say, providing half a dozen Pacific Island villages with solar panels, rather than ramping up a new Cold War.

Jeremy Rose is a Wellington-based journalist and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report. This article was first published by his Substack Towards Democracy.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/16/jeremy-rose-new-zealand-joins-the-arms-race-to-climate-calamity/

COMMENTARY: By Lim Tean

The most important response to Trump’s Hormuz announcement did not come from Beijing, Brussels or the United Nations. It came from Tehran, and it was four words long. “POTUS is absolutely right.”

That was Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, replying to the President’s declaration that the United States would henceforth be “THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT” and would be “reimbursed” at the rate of 20 percent on all cargo transiting the waterway. Araghchi agreed that whoever secured the Strait deserved compensation — adding only that Iran had always been its “true guardian”, and that 20 percent was too much.

Iran, he said, “will be fair.”

• READ MORE: Lim Tean: The Hormuz ‘guardian’ turns pirate – 20% for tribute
• US carrying out new attacks on Iran after Trump’s threats
• Other Lim Tean articles

Understand what just happened. The two states now fighting for control of the world’s most important oil artery are no longer arguing about whether ships must pay tribute to pass. They are haggling over the rate.

For 75 years, the entire edifice of the “freedom of the seas” rested on the opposite principle. Yesterday, its chief architect demolished it in a single post.

POTUS is absolutely right. Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service.

Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER.

20% is of course too much. We will be fair

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) July 13, 2026

What the law actually says
I practised shipping law for more than three decades, and I want readers to grasp how radical this announcement is in legal terms.

The regime governing straits like Hormuz is called transit passage, codified in Part III of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Its roots go back further, to the International Court of Justice’s very first case — Corfu Channel (1949) — where the court held that warships and merchant vessels alike enjoyed a right of passage through international straits that coastal states may not obstruct in peacetime.

Two pillars hold up this regime:

First, transit passage cannot be suspended. Not by the coastal state, not by anyone. Article 44 of UNCLOS is explicit.

Second — and this is the provision every reader should remember — passage cannot be taxed. Article 26 permits charges upon foreign ships only for specific services rendered to that ship, such as pilotage or towage. A general levy for the privilege of passing is flatly prohibited.

Even for coastal states.

Now consider the American position. The United States has no coastline on the Strait of Hormuz. It is not even a party to UNCLOS — for four decades Washington has insisted that transit passage binds Iran as customary international law, enforced by the US Navy on behalf of all nations.

Oman and Iran, the actual littoral states, could not lawfully charge a single dollar for mere passage. The United States has now proposed to charge 20 percent of cargo value — from 10,000 km away — as a matter of what the President calls “FAIRNESS.” (A laden VLCC carrying two million barrels of crude at today’s prices approaches US$30 million per transit).

That is not the enforcement of the international waterway doctrine. It is its replacement by tribute.

The trap Tehran sprang
Here is where Araghchi’s four words become lethal.

Customary international law — the only legal basis America has ever had in Hormuz, since it never ratified UNCLOS — is formed by two elements: the consistent practice of states, and the belief that such practice is legally required (opinio juris).

When Iran instituted its permit-and-fee regime for the Strait earlier this year, Washington’s legal position was simple: no state may condition or charge for transit passage. Iran’s regime was unlawful per se.

That position is now dead. Killed not by Iranian missiles, but by an American post. If the “guardian” of the Strait may lawfully charge 20 percent for security services, then a fortiori the coastal state — with genuine sovereignty over the waters in question — may charge for the same service.

Araghchi grasped this instantly. His reply conceded nothing and captured everything: you have adopted our legal theory; we now dispute only the price.

The United States has spent decades building the customary law of the sea through its own state practice. It is now dismantling that law by the same mechanism. Every future tribunal, every future crisis, every future power that wishes to tax a chokepoint — the Bosphorus, Malacca, Bab-el-Mandeb, the Panama approaches — will cite July 2026 as the moment the precedent was set by Washington itself.

However, President Trump has since backed away from the 20 percent charge, confirming that he was changing the “maritime security fee into historic multi-billion-dollar investment”.

He combined military strength with economic leverage, “securing major investment commitments instead of collecting fees”.

UPDATE: President Trump confirms the conversion of the proposed 20% maritime security fee into historic multi-billion-dollar investment.

President Trump combined military strength with economic leverage, securing major investment commitments instead of collecting fees.

This… pic.twitter.com/Y8LElvI6dZ

— Donald J Trump Posts TruthSocial (@TruthTrumpPost) July 15, 2026

A blockade without a war — the underwriter’s nightmare
There is a second legal absurdity buried in the announcement that only those of us from the maritime world will fully appreciate.

The President declared the reinstatement of “THE IRANIAN BLOCKADE” — stopping not only Iran’s ships but Iran’s customers. Blockade, in the law of naval warfare, is a belligerent right. It exists only in a state of armed conflict, it must be formally declared and notified, and it must be effective and impartial.

The San Remo Manual sets out these requirements precisely.

Yet Washington simultaneously insists it is not at war with Iran.

Consider the position of a shipowner, a P&I club, or a war risk underwriter today. A “blockade” that is not a blockade, imposed by a state that is not a belligerent, targeting “customers” of Iran — an undefined class that could sweep in any tanker that has ever lifted Iranian crude.

Meanwhile, Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority has declared passage “currently unfeasible” and maintains that its own permit system is the sole lawful route through the Strait.

Two sovereigns. Two permitting regimes. One body of water. Every vessel in the Gulf now sails under competing assertions of authority, each of which the other deems an act of war.

War risk premiums do not price legal theory — they price uncertainty. And there has never been uncertainty like this.

The guardian and the protection racket
Readers of this page know my argument: the “rules-based international order” has not been destroyed by its challengers. It is being liquidated by its author — sold off, asset by asset, for cash.

The freedom of the seas was the crown jewel of that order. It was the one rule America enforced with genuine consistency, because it was the rule from which American power flowed. The Royal Navy built the doctrine in the 19th century; the US Navy inherited it in the 20th.

Its moral force rested on a single proposition: the guardian takes nothing for itself. The seas were policed disinterestedly, and that disinterest was the legitimacy.

“Guardian” is an old word. In the waters I have worked in for 30 years, everyone understands what it means when an armed party offers you “safety and security” in exchange for a percentage of your cargo. It is the oldest business model on the sea. We did not used to call its practitioners guardians.

The Strait of Hormuz will remain open or it will close; the ceasefire will be rebuilt or it will collapse. But the doctrine — the idea that the world’s waterways belong to the community of nations and may not be farmed for revenue — died this week.

Not because Iran closed the Strait. Because America opened a toll booth.

The rules were never the order. Power was the order. The rules were its receipts.

Lim Tean is a Singaporean lawyer, politician and commentator. He is the founder of the political party People’s Voice and a co-founder of the political alliance People’s Alliance for Reform. He also hosts Lim’s Substack.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/15/the-toll-keeper-of-hormuz-how-the-us-just-buried-its-own-freedom-of-seas-doctrine/

By Kaya Selby of RNZ Pacific

Vanuatu will escalate a decades-long dispute with France over two uninhabited islands to international arbitrators.

Talks between the two countries left everything to be desired on June 30, with neither country budging on its claim of sovereignty.

The Matthew and Hunter Islands have been controlled by France for decades, even after Vanuatu became independent.

• READ MORE: Ben Bohane: Umaenupne and Umaeneg – isles of the Resting God
• Other Matthew and Hunter reports

But Vanuatu says it will never truly be independent without its Umaenupne and Umaeneag islands, sacred to the Aneityum people.

This impasse became the undoing of “intense” and “heated” talks, as Deputy Prime Minister Johnny Koanapo told reporters on Friday, two weeks after the June meeting.

He said that the sovereignty question would need to be laid to rest by a third party.

“Since independence Vanuatu continues to fight for international recognition that Matthew and Hunter, Umaenupne and Umaeneag, has always belonged to the people of Vanuatu, to our children,” Koanapo said.

Negotiations came up short
He noted that previous negotiations — mediated by Australia in 2018 and the United Kingdom in 2019 — had also come up short.

“Now what remains is for Vanuatu to pursue other legal options available under international law.”

“Let international law, let the International Court of Justice or any arbitration for that matter decide on this … to us what France has done is an insult to us all.”

For Toney Tevi, acting director of the Department of Ocean and Maritime Boundaries, compromise was impossible.

“If you try and say it belongs to France, then I don’t know where Paris is,” he told RNZ Pacific.

“I know it’s Vanuatu’s … it’s a colonial concept when you try and understand, because for us it’s not an ‘understanding’, it’s a part of us.”

Tevi said the impasse amounts to an unsurprising attempt by France to assert colonial power.

‘Thief always a thief’
“Colonisers will always be colonisers, that’s not something that comes as a surprise. A thief will always be a thief, and he enjoys being a thief.”

“No matter how best you can tell him that a thief is a bad person, as long as he’s got a possession, he feels like he’s doing something right.”

“The moment I try and understand how they think, then I am going to start to think like a colonizer.”

The two islands lie south of Vanuatu and east of the French territory of New Caledonia.

With ownership of the islands, either country would have an extra 350,000 sq km added to its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), according to the ABC.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said in a statement that areas of cooperation were also discussed, reiterating its position regarding French sovereignty.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/15/vanuatu-to-take-decades-long-dispute-with-france-to-international-court/

By Kaya Selby of RNZ Pacific

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/14/nzs-pacific-islands-forum-budget-could-face-a-10m-squeeze-oia-reveals/

Pacific Media Watch

Once again, the Strait of Hormuz is at the centre of the latest escalation in the war between Iran, the United States and their allies, reports Al Jazeera’s media watchdog The Listening Post.

The ceasefire collapsed just days after millions of Iranians took to the streets last week to pay homage to the late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Hundreds of foreign reporters and social media influencers were granted rare access to Iran to cover the funeral, signalling just how carefully Tehran has been calibrating its media messaging.

• READ MORE: How Iran used Ali Khamenei’s funeral as a political and diplomatic tool
• Tehran teemed with Khamenei mourners, but divisions – and demands for change – remain
• Other war on Iran reports

Listening Post presenter Richard Gizbert says what began as a week of mourning in Iran has “turned into the latest flare-up in the war in the Middle East with US President Donald Trump effectively calling the ceasefire dead”.

His programme explores the spectacle and symbolism of Khamenei’s funeral and how coverage of the supreme leader’s funeral exposed the limits of familiar Western narratives about Iran.

Contributors:
HA Hellyer – senior fellow, Royal United Services Institute
Samira Mohyeddin – host, On The Line Media
Negar Mortazavi – host, The Iran Podcast
Alex Vatanka – senior fellow, Middle East Institute

Khamenei’s funeral                          Video: AJ The Listening Post

On our radar
Türkiye has just hosted the NATO summit, and the country’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the US president Trump, used the event to project an image of unity and strength between Ankara and Washington.

Elettra Scrivo looks at the images, the messaging and how the coverage has shaped this story.

How Big Food sells ultraprocessed food
Ultraprocessed food is a major part of diets worldwide. These industrially formulated foods are often marketed as nutritious despite growing concerns that these products are contributing to a global health crisis.

The Listening Post’s Nicholas Muirhead looks at how Big Food is shaping the way we see and consume ultraprocessed food.

Featuring:
Marion Nestle – professor, New York University
Christopher Snowdon – head of lifestyle economics, Institute of Economic Affairs
Arun Gupta – doctor and nutritionist

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/14/how-tehran-turned-ayatollah-khameneis-funeral-into-a-media-event/

The tide has turned a little at Australia’s Royal Commission into Antisemitism with a second Jewish witness breaking from the Israel narrative. Michael West Media reports.

COMMENTARY: By Jeffrey Loewenstein

Sarah Schwartz, co-founder of the Jewish Council of Australia (JCA), gave evidence at the Royal Commission into Anti-Semitism and Social Cohesion last week.

I venture to suggest that it will come to be seen that Schwartz gave seminal evidence which the Commissioner is going to find hard to ignore when she is writing her report; evidence supported yesterday by the compelling testimony of Jewish university peace activist Yasmine Johnson.

Until Schwartz gave her evidence, we had seen testimonies given by members of the Jewish community — some of which can only be described as very troubling in terms of evidence — which sometimes bordered on hysterical.

• READ MORE: Saige England: Call out the Zionist hypocrisy – genociders are settler colonialists on steroids
• Antisemitism envoy Segal slams ABC, SBS ‘Israel bias’, wants to vet media
• Other Bondi Royal Commission reports

But, the elephant in the room?

Were the “attacks” described really attacks of an antisemitic nature,

or were they people venting their anger and outrage at Jews seen to be rusted-on, unquestioning supporters of Israel’s egregious actions in Gaza?

Take the example of a university student in Canberra who just yesterday was reported in the Nine media thus: ”Liat told the Commission she had felt “very physically unsafe” during the long encampment at her university campus … when people would laugh and leer at me and say, ‘Look at the baby killer, look at the genocide supporter’”.

No, that is not pleasant, but the fact is — a fact unchallenged aside from the state of Israel itself and the likes of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) — that more than 20,000 Palestinian children have been killed by the state of Israel and more than 44,000 injured since October 2023.

Why the rise in antisemitism?
What was more than significant, is that many of those who gave evidence of alleged antisemitism demonstrated absolutely no introspection. Why had there been a rise in anti-semitism since October 7?

Not because Hamas attacked Israel. No, it was, in many cases people showing their anger, yes, in some instances in a totally misguided way, at Israel’s actions in Gaza. Why did some 300,000 people from all walks of life and all ages, march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge on a foul, wet and windy day?

The palpable anger by a significant part of the Australian community, including many Jews, at what Israel did in Gaza, and continues to do to this day, is reflected in the sober evidence given at the Royal Commission yesterday by Yasmine Johnson, a co-convener for Students for Palestine and a protest organiser.

Following her evidence, Johnson, who is Jewish, told the media

the idea that campus protests “create a dangerous atmosphere, fear for people, is farcical”.

Antisemitism, anti-genocide conflation
“What we’ve heard,” she said “so far is day after day after day of evidence which conflates legitimate anti-genocide, pro-Palestine activism with genuine antisemitism which exists in our society.”

The earlier mentioned witness Liat, and others like her, may feel uncomfortable about what is being shouted out at her as much as she probably sees posters like “Free Palestine” as confronting and antisemitic, but has Liat — who acts as a  spokesperson for the Australasian Union of Jewish Students — either personally or on behalf of her organisation ever publicly accused Israel of being responsible for war crimes in Gaza, even if not genocide? Almost certainly, not!

And that is the rub.

Might this alleged antisemitism just have had something to do with Jews so visibly parading around with Israeli flags draped across their shoulders, waving Israelis flags at solidarity rallies for Israel, Jewish communal leaders excoriating those who called out Israel for engaging in genocide or starving children, and welcoming the Israeli President as their “national leader”?

Really? I thought we were Australians.

The “average” person could be forgiven for concluding that members of the Jewish community were demonstrating that they identified with and supported Israel.

The question to be asked here is why it is that criticising Israel by Jews is said to make the speaker a self-hating Jew, a “kapo” a “Judenrat” or, as in the case of Schwartz, to even be accused on ABC Radio National as being “anti-Jewish?”

They are shameful, offensive and disgraceful epithets. They are intended to be so.

Not to be ignored in the above is that the likes of a Mark Leibler, the ECAJ, AIJAC, the Zionist Federation of Australia and similar groups see Jews who criticise Israel as a no-go area even if they, falsely, assert that Jews are free to openly express their views about Israel.

It’s simply untrue!

There is the expectation from these quarters that all Jews will, as a matter of solidarity, support Israel as the Zionist/Jewish homeland. With this forked-tongue and double-speak it is no wonder that the sort of slurs and insults which Schwartz described at the Royal Commission are rife in the Jewish community.

A climate of fear
Conversely, those in the Jewish community who might otherwise speak out against Israel fear that they will be subjected to all manner of insults and even the break-down of family relationships.

Given the airing of Schwartz’s evidence, one has to also wonder why there has been total silence from the usually vocal Jewish organisations. Should they not be publicly calling out vilification of fellow-Jews, calling for vilification to be stopped and asking for respect for those Jews who are not Zionists, strident or not.

Proof of the “attitude” in the Jewish community to those who are not at one with supporting Israel is clearly demonstrated by the Australian Jewish News which, just last week, pulled a story attacking those in the Jewish community who attacked their fellow Jews with the the sort of offensive epithets directed at Sarah Schwartz.

My Israel question
I can speak personally to how the Jewish community reacts when Israel or the Israel Lobby comes under scrutiny. Back in 2006, Melbourne University Press published my son Antony Loewenstein’s book My Israel Question. The book flew off the shelves.

The response from the so-called powers-that be in the Jewish community — including a Jewish Federal member of  Parliament in Parliament, even exhorting people not to buy the book — bordered on feral.

Even putting aside the death threats to my son and his then partner, as an example of hate mail — which Schwartz has so clearly shown in her evidence — one early so-called correspondent wrote that he hoped that when the Nazis came to Australia that he and his parents would be the first to be marched into the gas chambers.

Unhinged? Yes!

But as Schwartz spelt out in her evidence at the Royal Commission many in the Jewish community see attacking those who do not support Israel 100 percent as legitimate. And if that extends to thuggery, look no further than the Jewish group the Lions of Zion and their “activities” — an organisation supported by the powers that be in the Jewish community.

Thankfully the JCA has provided an ever-growing forum and voice for Jews who will not remain silent given Israel’s genocide in Gaza and breaches of multiple international laws and conventions.

Let’s not forget, while Israel denies what a slew of scholars, human rights organisations and aid and medical agencies have found — including those learned on genocide, some of whom even live in Israel itself — the facts on the ground speak volumes. We have all seen and read about it.

Israel clearly stands guilty as charged!

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/14/antisemitic-really-jewish-leader-speaks-out-on-australias-royal-commission-hypocrisy/

COMMENTARY: By Saige England

I loathe hypocrisy. I am sure you do too. So let’s state this plainly. The genociders have employed hypocrisy as a defence.

It is the weakest of all defences. It is the wall that crumbles.

It is NOT antisemitic to stand against the state of supremacy and genocide, the Zionist state. It is not anti-semitic to state that the state should be dismantled.

• READ MORE: Antisemitic, really? Jewish leader speaks out on Royal Commission hypocrisy
• Saige England: Praise for Australia’s Jewish Council but NZ’s council is a hasbara propaganda campaign
• Other Bondi Royal Commission reports

It is not antisemitic to state that every single massacre of Palestinians — their forced exile and the attempted extermination of all Palestinians, is wrong.

It is not antisemitic to demand a different state, one where all Palestinians have the right of return and where the land — from the river to the sea — can be shared.

The vast majority of Zionists in the world are not Jewish, they are born-mad-again people who identify as Christian and who have adopted a violent notion that violence is fine as long as it is directed against Palestinians.

Settler colonialism on steroids. Again.

Starving Indigenous people
Like the history of colonialism everywhere — an Empire killing and starving Indigenous people. In Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the US, Australia, New Zealand — the Palestinians have been ground down and cast into dust.

The only sensible stance is to stand against the carnage and to say never again means never again for everyone.

I know many Jews who stand against the fascism of Zionism. The Bund was a whole movement of Jews who stood for this.

Once again, and again and again, I call down my Jewish ancestors in standing with them and with all humanitarians who support the rights of Palestinians to live on the land, from the river, to the sea, free of apartheid, free of exile, free of the fear of snipers and bombs.

Saige England is an award-winning journalist and author of The Seasonwife, a novel exploring the brutal impacts of colonisation. She is also a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/13/saige-england-call-out-the-zionist-hypocrisy-genociders-are-settler-colonialists-on-steroids/

By Kaya Selby of RNZ Pacific

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/14/dilapidated-infrastructure-blamed-for-fatal-png-prison-escape-attempt/

COMMENTARY: By Lim Tean

The United States went to war to stop Iran charging tolls in the Strait of Hormuz. It has now imposed a toll 15 times larger. Where is the “international waterway” chorus now?

For five months, we were treated to a sermon. Foreign ministries from Brussels to Tokyo to the Gulf capitals lined up to recite the catechism: the Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway. Freedom of navigation is sacrosanct.

No state may impose charges on innocent transit. Iran’s proposal to levy a passage fee was denounced as extortion, as hostage-taking of the global economy, as a violation of the law of the sea so grave that it justified war.

• READ MORE: US carrying out new attacks on Iran after Trump’s threats
• Other Lim Tean articles

On Monday, the President of the United States announced that America will henceforth be known as “THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT” — and that as guardian, it will be reimbursed at the rate of 20 percent of the value of all cargo passing through the waterway. Effective immediately.

Let us do the arithmetic the hymn-singers will not do. Iran was reportedly seeking something in the region of US$2 million per vessel — a figure the United States declared intolerable, a casus belli. A 20 percent ad valorem charge on a laden VLCC carrying two million barrels of crude at today’s prices approaches US$30 million per transit.

BREAKING: The UAE says two national tankers were hit by Iranian cruise missiles in the Strait of Hormuz, killing one crew member and injuring eight others. Authorities say the fires have been contained. pic.twitter.com/xfMDH2EHgn

— Al Jazeera Breaking News (@AJENews) July 13, 2026

The United States bombed Iran over a toll, and has replaced it with a toll 15 times greater — collected not by the coastal state whose territorial sea the shipping lanes actually pass through, but by a power projecting force from half a world away.

There is a word for demanding a percentage of cargo value from merchant vessels under threat of naval interdiction. The word is not “guardianship.” Every shipping lawyer knows the word. Every P&I club knows the word. The Barbary corsairs knew the word, and they at least had the honesty to use it.

The law they invoked now condemns them
I have spent more than three decades in shipping law, and I want readers to understand precisely what has been done to the legal order these governments claimed to defend.

Article 38 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) guarantees the right of transit passage through straits used for international navigation. That right is absolute in a way few rights in international law are: it cannot be suspended, and it cannot be conditioned on payment — not to the coastal state, and certainly not to a third power that has appointed itself gatekeeper.

Article 42 permits bordering states to regulate certain matters, but expressly forbids any regulation that has the practical effect of denying, hampering or impairing transit. Article 26, governing territorial seas, states the principle in terms a child could understand: no charge may be levied upon foreign ships by reason only of their passage.

When Iran floated its toll, every chancellery in the Western world could recite these provisions from memory. Legal advisers produced learned memoranda. Editorial boards thundered. Now the United States — which, let us remember, has never even ratified UNCLOS — imposes a charge an order of magnitude larger, on a strait whose shipping lanes run through Iranian and Omani territorial waters, and the chancelleries have discovered the virtue of silence.

The US military says it has begun a third night of strikes against Iran, hours ahead of a planned reinstatement of a naval blockade on Iran announced by President Donald Trump. https://t.co/UrU0tRWO2A

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) July 13, 2026

The historical parallel is exact, and it is damning. For four centuries, Denmark extracted the Sound Dues from every vessel passing between the North Sea and the Baltic — a percentage of cargo value, paid under the guns of Kronborg Castle. The maritime powers spent generations denouncing this as a relic of feudal extortion incompatible with the freedom of the seas, and finally abolished it by treaty in 1857.

The principal architect of that abolition — the state that refused on principle to pay tribute for passage through an international strait — was the United States of America.

And there is an older irony still. The founding myth of the American navy is the refusal to pay the Barbary states for safe passage in the Mediterranean: millions for defence, but not one cent for tribute. Two and a quarter centuries later, America has not merely agreed to tribute. It has become the party collecting it.

The hymn sheet, revisited
So let us now address the chorus. Where are all the governments now — the ones who spent the spring singing from the hymn sheet of the “international waterway”?

You told us this was about principle. You told us that the freedom of navigation through international straits was a pillar of the rules-based order, that small trading nations above all depended upon it, that Iran’s toll was piracy dressed in the language of sovereignty.

Very well. The test of a principle is whether you will state it against your friends. Iran’s proposed charge was a rounding error compared to what Washington has just decreed. If US$2 million was piracy, what is US$30 million? If Iran holding the world economy hostage justified war, what does the “Guardian of the Hormuz Strait” holding it hostage justify — a strongly worded communiqué? An awkward pause at the next summit?

The silence answers the question. The principle was never the freedom of the seas. The principle was that the patron does not pay; the patron collects. The rules-based order, as I have argued at length in these pages, was never a body of rules at all. It was a hierarchy wearing the costume of law, and the costume has now been removed in public.

Consider what Gulf producers are being asked to accept. They cheered — some openly, some through gritted teeth — as American ordnance fell on Iran in the name of keeping the strait free.

Their reward is a levy on their own exports larger than anything Tehran ever contemplated, imposed unilaterally, with no treaty, no consent, no sunset clause, and no forum in which to contest it. They have exchanged a neighbour’s toll booth for an emperor’s tax farm, and they are expected to call it protection.

Seems like Trump just made a pitch for the Iranian toll system.

Because the Iranians were going to charge $1mn per ship, which would amount to 1-2% of the value of the cargo of an oil tanker.

But Trump is going to charge 20%! pic.twitter.com/m2lpNbxd0W

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) July 13, 2026

What the underwriters will decide
Here is the dimension the political commentary will miss, and it is the one that will actually determine events. The Strait of Hormuz now has two rival authorities, each asserting control, each attaching conditions to passage. Iran’s Strait Authority has declared passage unfeasible until calm is restored and speaks of permits and designated corridors.

Washington declares the strait open, promises convoys, and demands its 20 percent.

For the war risk underwriter in London or Oslo, this is not a geopolitical abstraction. It is an impossible risk matrix. Compliance with one authority is defiance of the other. A master who joins an American convoy has identified his vessel with a belligerent; a master who hugs the Iranian corridor and pays Tehran invites interdiction by the self-appointed guardian.

Either course may void cover or trigger exclusions. Add a 20 percent cargo levy to war risk premia already at extraordinary levels, and the commercial mathematics of the strait collapse entirely. The blockade of Hormuz will be completed not by mines or missiles but by the quiet refusal of underwriters to write the risk — a mechanism I have described in the past, when the enforcement power of marine insurance was still treated as an exotic footnote.

The reckoning
Every empire that turned its guarantees into revenue streams discovered the same thing: protection that must be purchased is indistinguishable from the threat it purports to guard against, and clients who are billed like subjects begin, quietly, to shop for alternatives. The two corridors of the New World Order — the ones I have written about since earlier this year — just became three: Iran’s, America’s, and the growing routes that avoid both.

To the governments who sang from the hymn sheet: you were not defending the freedom of the seas. You were defending the exclusive right of your patron to price it. Now the invoice has arrived, addressed to you, at 20 percent of everything you own that floats.

How does it feel?

Lim Tean is a Singaporean lawyer, politician and commentator. He is the founder of the political party People’s Voice and a co-founder of the political alliance People’s Alliance for Reform. He also hosts Lim’s Substack.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/13/lim-tean-the-hormuz-guardian-turns-pirate-20-for-tribute/

RNZ Morning Report

The outcome of the US and Israel war against Iran looks likely to come down to a test of wills, says a local expert — with Iran appearing unlikely to be the first to blink.

The fragile ceasefire between the two sides has collapsed, with the US carrying out scores of strikes and Iran hitting back at US-aligned targets in the region.

Dr Robert Patman, professor of international relations at the University of Otago, told RNZ Morning Report today it was a “precarious situation” in which both sides wanted an agreement that would stop the fighting, but on incompatible terms.

• READ MORE: Concern for renewed war in Iran as US attacks military, civilian targets
• The Gulf tollbooth that demands real recognition – Iran closes the Strait on cue
• Other war on Iran reports

“Both sides are trying to, if you like, affect the understanding of the memorandum of understanding, the document that has dictated the ceasefire talks. They’re trying to shape that in a direction which will give them a settlement on their own terms.

“He said the memorandum between the two sides included a requirement for Iran to “make its best efforts to … ensure the free passage of commercial traffic” through the Strait of Hormuz.

“The Iranians have interpreted that as giving them leverage over the Strait of Hormuz, and they believe that was a recognition by the United States,” Dr Patman explained.

“The United States disagrees, I think much of the international community disagrees with that interpretation, but the Iranians take the view that we’re not going back to the status quo.

Illegally attacked by US
“They take the view they were illegally attacked by the United States. That resulted in them asserting themselves over the Strait of Hormuz and also, as we’ve seen, retaliating against the Gulf States.

“But they’re not going to give up what they see as the leverage they obtained as a result of being attacked by the United States and Israel.”

While the US could “apply ever greater amounts of military power”, Dr Patman said its track record using such strategy was “not promising”.

“It was the very thing which gave the Iranians leverage over the Strait of Hormuz and enabled them to attack US bases in Gulf states. So applying more of the same doesn’t look like it’s going to bring the Iranians to heel. And the Iranians believe time is on their side.”

Dr Patman said despite its power — particularly over the UN Security Council — the US made a “profound strategic misjudgment” in attacking Iran, and should not expect any agreement which ends the war to be “optimal”.

“At the outset, it expected the conflict would be over within four to five days. The regime would collapse and Iran could be reshaped perhaps on a democratic basis.

“If anything, that attack has empowered and resuscitated the regime in Iran. And there’s little sign that hardline elements within Iran are going to back down in the near future.”

This story was first published on

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/12/profound-strategic-misjudgment-why-iran-may-have-upper-hand-in-war-with-us/

RNZ Digital reporters

Sam Neill was New Zealand’s biggest international film star, yet was a modest man who shied from the media spotlight. He has died at 78.

He was born in Northern Ireland to a British mother and a New Zealand father stationed there with the British army.

The family moved to New Zealand when he was 8, and it was at school in Christchurch that he first took the name Sam.

• READ MORE: Actor Sam Neill’s final take — Megan Mackander of ABC
  
• Tributes flow for actor Sir Sam Neill, dead at 78

He had been baptised Nigel John Dermot Neill, but changed because there were a lot of Nigels at the school.

His interest in acting originated at Christ’s College, where he became involved in the school drama society.

He continued to act at Canterbury University, and after graduating with a BA joined a troupe of traveling players who toured the country performing plays for schools.

In 1971 he joined the National Film Unit as a director of documentaries.

He made his acclaimed debut as a film actor in 1977 in the hit Sleeping Dogs and shot to international attention in the Australian film My Brilliant Career.

His other movie credits include the box-office hits Jurassic Park, and The Piano, as well as Evil Angels, Plenty, Dead Calm, The Hunt for Red October and Sirens.

He also wrote and presented Cinema of Unease, a history of film in New Zealand.

Despite his success, Neill never saw himself as a star and was once quoted as saying he regarded himself simply as a working actor who was in demand.

He received an OBE in 1995 for his achievements in the film industry and, while working mainly overseas, maintained a home near Queenstown.

Neill was made a Knight Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 2022. And in late 2025, he joined the ranks of Dame Julie Christie and actor and director Oscar Kightley in being named a NZ Screen Legend.

In his 2023 memoir, Did I Ever Tell You This?, he revealed he was “possibly dying” with stage-three non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

But earlier in 2026, he said he had lived with the blood cancer for about five years but his chemotherapy treatment eventually stopped working.

“I was at a loss and it looked like I was on the way out, which wasn’t ideal, obviously,” he told Australia’s Channel Seven News.

The actor was treated with CAR T-cell therapy, which uses a disabled virus to genetically reprogramme human infection-fighting T-cells, enabling them to target specific cancers.

This story was first published on

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/13/sam-neill-nzs-biggest-but-modest-movie-star-dies-at-78/

OBITUARY: By Caitlin Johnstone

The only positive thing about the Iran war heating up again is that Lindsey Graham won’t be around to enjoy it.

The bloodthirsty South Carolina senator breathed his last on Saturday, succumbing to what his office describes as “a brief and sudden illness” after a political career dedicated to promoting wars, airstrikes and proxy conflicts at every possible opportunity.

People have long poked fun at the hypocrisy of Lindsey Graham living as an obvious closeted gay man in a political party with a virulently anti-LGBTQ platform. I personally have always found Graham’s sexual attraction to men a lot less interesting than his sexual attraction to acts of mass military slaughter.

• LISTEN: A reading by Tim Foley

Ever since the death of Graham’s dear friend John McCain, nobody on Capitol Hill has been able to match his gleeful enthusiasm for the shredding of human bodies using high-priced war machinery.

Wherever there was any debate about dropping bombs, launching missiles, toppling foreign governments, arming proxy forces, or imposing starvation sanctions, you could always count on Lindsey Graham to be the first and loudest voice arguing in favour of more death and destruction.

Graham has personally taken credit for persuading President Trump to begin the war with Iran. In the months leading up to his unexpected demise, the senator had advocated for direct US military interventionism in Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Yemen, Nigeria, Lebanon, and Palestine, and had just returned from a trip to Kyiv promoting the US proxy war against Russia.

He was literally pushing for more war and military expansionism until the very end of his life.

All the world’s worst people are publicly expressing their grief about the loss of their beloved war slut, from Trump to Benjamin Netanyahu to Itamar Ben-Gvir to Tom Cotton to Mike Huckabee. Meanwhile, everyone who’s not a warmongering psychopath is having a splendid day.

Well, at least Lindsey Graham is dead                   Video/audio: Caitlin Johnstone

Of course we’re seeing imperial narrative managers like Piers Morgan wagging their fingers and chiding their audiences not to speak ill of the dead, but the hell with them. We’re not doing that.

JUST IN – Lindsey Graham and Trump pose together with a “Make Iran Great Again” hat, signed by Trump. pic.twitter.com/656ctZp52M

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) January 5, 2026

Politeness is not more important than Lindsey Graham’s victims. The liberal desire for propriety and nice feelings does not outweigh the importance of naming and shaming Graham’s frenetic scramble to murder as many human beings as he possibly could throughout his evil, miserable life.

Sara and I grieve with the American people over the loss of our dear friend, Senator Lindsey Graham.

In our recent meeting, I said, “Lindsey is a great friend of Israel and a cherished friend of mine. We have no better friend than Lindsey.”

Lindsey understood that the security… pic.twitter.com/JG2mUUAfFT

— Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו (@netanyahu) July 12, 2026

Lindsey Graham is dead, and it is good that he is dead. May his omnicidal ideology soon join him in the arms of the cold, cold ground. May the insane, insatiable god he worshipped cease to gain recognition on this planet.

Lindsey Graham is dead. At least that’s one good thing. No matter what else happens today, they can’t take that away from us.

Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian independent journalist and poet. Her articles include The UN Torture Report On Assange Is An Indictment Of Our Entire Society. She publishes a website and Caitlin’s Newsletter. This article is republished with permission.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/13/caitlin-johnstone-well-at-least-lindsey-graham-is-dead/

Australian Special Envoy Jillian Segal has slammed public broadcasters ABC and SBS at the Royal Commission into Antisemitism for “anti-Israel bias” and called for a media monitor to vet coverage. Michael West Media reports.

By Stephanie Tran in Sydney

Giving evidence to the Royal Commission last week, Australian Antisemitism Envoy Jillian Segal lamented that reporting on Israel’s genocide in Gaza has “created an impression of great negativity about Israel”.

“It’s the perception of the Jewish community feeling constantly that they are being faced with reporting about the Middle East, about Gaza, and about Israel in a way that paints Israel constantly in a negative light,” she said.

Segal said there was a “disproportionate” number of stories critical of Israel.

• READ MORE: Jillian Segal falsely claimed Gaza death toll is ‘grossly inflated’. Here are the facts
• ABC and SBS reject antisemitism envoy’s call for ‘oversight’ committee to vet Israel coverage
• What ceasefire? People still being killed and Gaza still under siege
• Other Bondi Royal Commission reports

Sad for everyone
“There are going to be examples on both sides of activities in a war, which all you know is very sad for everyone, involving you know unfortunate loss of life. But it’s the preponderance of the focus … on the behaviour of Israel, as opposed to the behaviour of Hamas.”

Counsel assisting the commission challenged Segal’s criticism of the public broadcasters ABC and SBS, noting that since October 7, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) had not found the ABC or SBS to have breached broadcasting codes in relation to their coverage.

Segal conceded that ACMA “haven’t found a great deal of inaccuracy”.

“I do concede that they haven’t found a great deal of inaccuracy, but it’s the more complex, nuanced issues of prioritisation, impartiality, and objectivity and balance that I’m concerned to achieve,” she said.

Segal argued that the public broadcasters should devote more coverage to “positive stories” about Israel.

“We should find a way where they also run positive stories,” she said.

“They could run positive stories about other things Israel is doing, the amazing startup nation, things like that. They very rarely do that. There is no attempt at that part of the agenda.”

SBS too
Discussing reports that Israel was starving children in Gaza, Segal described them as “a very negative story” and questioned whether broadcasters should seek to balance such reporting with stories portraying Israel more positively.

Segal said that balance was “very complicated” but “if you wanted balance after that negative story should there have been a very positive story about what was positively in the Middle East to feed children?”

She said there should be “scepticism in relation to some information emanating from Gaza” and called on the ABC factcheck UN reports and “not just report it as if it was undoubted fact, the first item and the news”.

Segal also criticised the SBS’s reporting on the death toll in Gaza.

“The statistics have now been reported as having not distinguished between combatants and non-combatants, and therefore were inflated, but my point is that they were put out there as statistics by a Health Ministry, as we understand health industries being objective, organised structures within part of Hamas,” she said.

Monitor public broadcasters, adopt IHRA definition
Segal proposed forming an “independent” committee to monitor the ABC and SBS.

“That it is a committee that is appointed without the community, as long as they are people who are aware of the and understanding of modern day antisemitism and modern day hatreds.”

She said the existing Ombudsman and ACMC were “without teeth” as they do “not have the powers to impose or require reports to be taken offline”.

Segal urged the public broadcasters to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

“It would enable the reporters to better understand the conflation because it would be ‘are you seeking to make the point so much that Israel is different in its fighting at the war to other wars that have been fought by Australia, by America etc.?’ … So it would just help them in understanding it,” she said.

ABC editorial director Gavin Fang said the broadcaster had deliberately chosen not to adopt the definition because of concerns it would undermine their independence.

“The IHRA definition, the examples in the definition in particular, are contested,” Fang said.

“It is important for us to maintain not just our independence, but the perception of independence … adopting a definition that’s contested would not help us with both the perception of independence and our independence more broadly.”

Amanda Wicks, SBS’s director of news and current affairs, said the broadcaster neither “accepts nor rejects” the definition.

Wicks said SBS recognised the IHRA definition as “an important definition recognised by many”, but said the broadcaster did not determine for itself whether conduct was antisemitic.

“We are only ever reporting on antisemitism when it is determined to be such by police, the legal system [or] the community itself,” she said.

“We’re never in a position where something happens [and] we determine as SBS that that is antisemitic.”

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/13/antisemitism-envoy-segal-slams-abc-sbs-israel-bias-wants-to-vet-media/

By Margot Staunton of RNZ Pacific

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/13/samoa-opposition-leader-says-treason-inquiry-delayed-over-lack-of-evidence/