No wonder ABC ranks behind Seven and Nine in viewer trustworthiness after Insiders, Media Watch went into denial about misleading photo of Gazan child
It has just been drawn to Media Watch Dog's attention that the recently appointed ABC managing director and editor-in-chief was interviewed on ABC Radio Darwin's afternoon program. The date was Thursday 31 July. The following exchange took place with Jess Ong:
Jess Ong: There is this idea, this commentary, that the ABC is too left leaning, too woke. How do you kind of respond to those things?
Hugh Marks: It's actually a really important issue, because I think the content choices we make are really important, and are we getting those choices right all the time? You know, I'm a pretty straight talking, straight to the point sort of person. I think that's a new approach for the ABC. We will see, you know, how long it takes me to influence the culture of the organisation.
Jess Ong: What do you mean by that exactly?
Hugh Marks: Well, I just think, you know, having those discussions around the choices that we make, of the things that we decide to cover and how, and having that discussion constantly, and making sure that we are as relevant as we can for the audiences that we serve, they're the right discussions to be having. So, we need to talk about the content. I think sometimes we talked about the process, or we talked about the ABC of it all, or we got stuck in the bureaucracy of the matters. You know, what I want to have the conversations about is, what is the content? Is it connecting with audiences? Are we covering the right things? Are we making the right choices? I think they're really important discussions for us to have.
Mr Marks is correct to look at the ABC's content. But only if it is considered with respect to viewpoint diversity – which the taxpayer funded public broadcaster is seriously lacking.
While the ABC remains a Conservative Free Zone with not one conservative presenter or producer or editor for any of its prominent television, radio or online outlets it's unlikely that the ABC's content problems can be addressed. CAN YOU BEAR IT? NABIL AL-NASHAR – THE ABC'S MAN ON THE HARBOUR BRIDGE – MISTAKES BARRACKING FOR REPORTING THE GAZA PROJECT
The big news of the week was the 3 August 'March for Humanity' organised by professional demonstrator Josh Lees and the Palestine Action Group. Gerard Henderson has covered this in his column in The Weekend Australian on Saturday 9 August.
As mentioned earlier, Hugh Marks was interviewed on ABC Radio in Darwin on 31 July. Asked by the interviewer, who is also one of his employees, as to whether the ABC was 'too left-wing, too woke' he did not deny this. But Mr Marks called for a 'conversation' within the taxpayer funded public broadcaster to discuss such matters.
Now Media Watch Dog always tries to be helpful.
On this occasion Ellie's (male) co-owner suggests that Mr Marks might do well to review the ABC TV News on 3 August bulletins which covered the march led by Comrade Lees and the Palestine Action Group.
The journalist was Nabil Al-Nashar who is Egyptian-born and came to Australia via Qatar. Here's how he reported the march. Let's go to the transcript:
Thousands have braved this weather, the courts, and the warnings of the New South Wales Premier Chris Minns, to be here today. Their message is the loudest it's ever been. They are deeply concerned about the level of human suffering taking place in Gaza. They want it to stop and they're calling on the Australian government to act now.
That's not reporting. That's barracking. Could this be the subject of one of Mr Marks' first conversations. And here's another question: Can You Bear It? NINE'S SMH THROWS THE SWITCH TO HYPERBOLE – STARRING ALEXANDRA SMITH
Nine Newspapers' The Sydney Morning Herald was also into barracking. Here's how the SMH led its front page on Monday 4 August, the morning after the Sunday before.
The suggestion was that all Sydneysiders – some 5.5 million of them – had united behind Comrade Lees and the Palestine Action Group. There was a big crowd on Sydney Harbour Bridge, estimated by NSW Police as around 90,000. But that's a long way south of over 5.5 million.
Then on Page 5 an opinion piece by Alexandra Smith, the SMH's NSW state political editor, was headed 'City unites for the sake of humanity'. This is how she commenced her piece:
Despite the worst fears of NSW Police and Premier Chris Minns, Sunday's pro-Palestine protest on the Harbour Bridge will be remembered as the day Sydney turned out en masse to plead for humanity. Protesting against a growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza has entered the mainstream.
There is no other way to explain the reported 90,000 people who braved horrendous wet weather to walk – or, for a large part, stand – to demand an end to a worsening famine in the occupied territory.
Judging from the SMH's Letters Pages, it could be that SMH readers united in support of the Palestine Action Group. However, Ms Smith should get out more if she believes that Sydney is united about anything or that 90,000 is a 'mass'' of Sydneysiders. This is more hyperbole posing as analysis. Can You Bear It? 7.30 PRESENTER SARAH FERGUSON – SOFT ON JEWISH CRITICS OF ISRAEL – UNPROFESSIONAL WITH JEWISH SUPPORTERS OF ISRAEL
While on the issue about a certain lack of balance in the reporting of matters Israel, compare how ABC TV's 7.30 presenter Sarah Ferguson covered the issue.
On Tuesday 5 August, Ms Ferguson interviewed the Jewish American Kenneth Roth, a long-term critic of contemporary Israel. The former head of Human Rights Watch was in Australia on the occasion of the release of his book Righting Wrongs . This is how the (soft) interview concluded:
Sarah Ferguson: Now, I'd like to go on and talk about the extent of your career, but you arrive here in a moment of great intensity. I recommend the book but Kenneth Roth, thank you very much indeed for joining us this evening.
Kenneth Roth: Thank you for having me.
And here's how Sarah Ferguson ended her interview with the Jewish Israeli Peter Lerner who was, at the time, a colonel in the Israel Defense Forces. The date was 8 April 2024:
Sarah Ferguson : Lieutenant Colonel Peter Lerner, I am not accepting your view…. There is a lot further to go with this story. But thank you very much indeed for joining us.
How's that for ABC balance? Can You Bear It? ROSS GITTINS – AUSTRALIA'S WELL-OFF SACKCLOTH AND ASHES GURU – TELLS READERS NOT TO WORRY TOO MUCH ABOUT GOOD PAY
Lotsa thanks to the avid Media Watch Dog reader who drew attention to Ross Gittins column in the Sydney Morning Herald (aka the 'Sydney Morning Gittins') on 30 July. It was titled 'We don't just work for more stuff'.
Readers of your man Gittins (if readers there be) are used to his sermonising on life. Here's how the column commenced:
Sorry, but the more the great and good bang on about the urgent need for more 'productivity', the more doubts I have. Have you noticed it's always the business people, economists and politicians who tell us what we need more of, never us telling them what we'd like?
Gittins – who presents as a contemporary sackcloth and ashes kind of guy – went on to maintain that 'people at the top of our economy' are worried that without productivity growth 'our standard of living may never go any higher' and that such an outcome 'would be disastrous'.
The SMH 's economics editor did not agree. He reckons that 'the management class' maintain they 'could make you so much richer if only you'd let us make your working lives a misery'. According to Gittins, 'good pay is nice, but work is about a lot more than pay'.
So, there you have it. Gittins believes that Australian workers are more focused on job satisfaction than 'pursuing ever higher material living standards'. This is the same Ross Gittins who wrote not long ago that he has over $3 million in superannuation. No wonder, at age 77, Gittins is not worried about 'good pay'. Can You Bear It? RAF EPSTEIN'S FAKE (HISTORICAL) NEWS ABOUT ONE-TIME LABOR LEADER BERT EVATT
Thanks also to the Victorian reader who heard ABC Melbourne Radio Mornings host Rafael Epstein in a discussion about Winston Churchill and a platypus – no less.
Epstein declared, for some reason or other, that former Labor Party leader Bert Evatt 'would go on to form the United Nations'.
What a load of absolute tosh.
Bert Evatt, who led Labor to a trio of election defeats in the 1950s, was involved in the formation of the United Nations. But no more than that.
There are so many myths about the man who was called 'Doc Evatt' put about by his left-wing mates. As John Murphy wrote in Evatt: A Life (New South 2016), even Evatt's headstone at Woden Cemetery in Canberra carries false information.
He is described there as '1948-1949, President of the United Nations'.
Evatt never held such a position.
He was President of the United Nations General Assembly for a term. Evatt was never head of the UN. Nor was he the UN's founder. Clearly the oh-so-confident Comrade Epstein is into fake news.
So MWD asks: Can You Bear It? FIVE PAWS AWARD
Media Watch Dog's Five Paws Award was inaugurated in Issue Number 26 (4 September 2009) during the time of Nancy (2004-2017).
The first winner was ABC TV presenter Emma Alberici. Ms Alberici scored for remembering the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 23 August 1939 whereby Hitler and Stalin divided Eastern Europe between Germany and the Soviet Union.
And for stating that the Nazi-Soviet Pact had effectively started the Second World War, since it was immediately followed by Germany's invasion of Poland from the West (at a time when the Soviet Union had become an ally of Germany). Soon after, the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the East.
Over the years, the late Nancy's Five Paws Award has become one of the world's most prestigious gongs – rating just below the Nobel Prize and the Academy Awards. HERESY AT THE ABC AS ITS FINANCE PRESENTER ALAN KOHLER SAYS THAT AUSTRALIA WILL NOT REACH NET ZERO EMISSIONS BY 2050
The date was Sunday 3 August 2025.
The hour was after Gin & Tonic time and during Pre-Dinner Drinks Time. The man of the moment was ABC finance presenter Alan Kohler, who presents The Kohler Report podcast on the ABC.
Comrade Kohler had this to say on ABC TV's news bulletin on the Feast Day of Saint Lydia of Philippi about Net Zero by 2050 and all that – when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will turn 87 years of age and Opposition leader Sussan Ley, 89. While Comrade Kohler will – well, he was born in 1952.
Let's go to the transcript:
Alan Kohler: Look, I'm sorry to say this, but we're not going to stop global warming. We should keep trying to hit net zero by 2050 and the Coalition should keep tearing itself apart over it. But we're halfway through the 50-year project of achieving net zero emissions that started in Kyoto in 1997. But emissions haven't started falling yet. The average world temperature is already more than the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels that the world pledged in Paris in 2015 to try to avoid.
And while one hesitates to attribute blame, it's China's fault.
China is almost entirely responsible for the increase in carbon dioxide emissions since 1997, with a bit of help from India.
High income countries are entirely responsible for what happened before that, which is a lot. Australia's emissions have increased by 20 per cent as well, but that amount is a rounding error.
Now, I pointed out here a fortnight ago that China is leading the world in renewable energy, which is true.
But it's also leading in the burning of coal.
So where does this leave us?
Well, I think the most useful thing the government can do is focus on getting ready for the reality of global warming and take full advantage of the energy transition, because it is starting to accelerate, even though it might be too late.
In the short term, it's going to be an insurance problem.
The cost of extreme weather events in Australia has been doubling each decade.
A new study released last week showed that hailstones are getting bigger and more damaging.
But the big one is floods.
They're getting deeper and wider, and if you live in a flood plain now, you're uninsured.
The governments, state and federal, have to build levies or lift houses up onto stilts or move people to higher ground.
The insurance industry wants a $30 billion-dollar, 10-year flood defence fund, which is probably not enough.
But a carbon tax would pay for it, and would also do something about emissions.
For the record, both the Albanese-led government and the Ley-led opposition are opposed to a carbon tax.
In any event, as Alan Kohler concedes, an Australian carbon tax would only do a mere 'something' about global emissions. After all, Australia is responsible for just over 1 per cent of global emissions.
So there you have it.
Alan Kohler has made a stand against the Net Zero by 2050 orthodoxy that pervades the taxpayer funded public broadcaster. To re-work a cliché – according to the ABC's economics expert, Net Zero by 2050 has no clothes.
Alan Kohler: Five Paws.
[Interesting. Since you are giving cliches a chance, I wonder how Alan Kohler was treated around the ABC Ultimo water-cooler last Monday. On another matter, how is Nine Newspapers' senior economics correspondent Shane Wright going with his claim of recent memory that coal in the early 21st Century is as damned as the candlestick industry in the late 19th Century – in view of Comrade Kohler's acknowledgement that China is leading the world in the burning of coal. – MWD Editor.] A LATE NIGHT LIVE MOMENT YOU'RE RIGHT – JOHN HEWSON GETS DEFEATED ON LNL BY ANNABEL CRABB, RIGHT?
As avid Media Watch Dog readers are aware, ABC Radio National's Late Night Live provides great copy for Ellie's (male) co-owner. For starters, it's an on-going example of the taxpayer funded broadcaster as a Conservative Free Zone.
So much so that LNL could stand for 'Late Night Left'. The presenters are left-of-centre types.
Currently, David Marr and before him Phillip Adams. Comrades both. And Annabel Crabb reports on Australian politics, Ian Dunt on British politics and Bruce Shapiro on United States politics. Comrades all – not a conservative among this lot.
Last week's MWD covered the appearance of John Hewson – a former Liberal Party leader and now a vehement Liberal Party critic – who was invited to discuss his views on The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) which was established by the Albanese Labor government. But, at the invitation of Comrade Marr, the interview ended with Dr Hewson (for a doctor he is) bagging the Liberal Party.
However, what most intrigued MWD was the fact that, when the discussion turned on the NACC, the learned doctor initially reported to a David Marr question/comment with a 'you're right' – on no fewer than 16 occasions.
It seems that 'right' is a fave word on Late Night Left.
On Monday 4 August, Comrade Crabb did the weekly gig with Comrade Marr. Sure, it was post-Dinner Drinks Time.
Even so, would anyone have understood the part of the interview when discussion turned on LNL's new introductory theme. It included this incomprehensible dialogue which Hendo heard while on his Late Night Walk.
David Marr: But now, Australian politics, Annabel Crabb. Annabel let's get to the principal issue straight away. What do you think of the [new] theme?
Annabel Crabb: I cannot believe that you've sprung this on your people. I mean, I like it, but you're doomed. There will be rioting. I mean, I love it. But there will be another Bridge March, and it'll be about this.
David Marr: …But no, I think people everywhere are going to sense that we've had enough of the Baroque and this engages with today in a curiously energetic, some words from you. I mean –
Annabel Crabb: There will be correspondence.
David Marr: Ah, there will.
Annabel Crabb : There will be correspondence. I'm just remembering when they phased out or messed with the majestic fanfare.
David Marr: For the news.
Annabel Crabb: You know – [Crabb makes trumpet noises]. Not to be confused with the Lissajous, which is the formal name for the swoosh, the ABC's sort of swooshy thing. I mean, people have feelings about these things.
David Marr: Of course they do. They have feelings. And one of those feelings can be perhaps nine years is enough for an obscure Baroque composer.
Annabel Crabb: I think nine years is about as long as it will take for people to get used to the new thing.
David Marr: Nup, nup. Stop it. Stop it.
What were they on about? Or, more seriously, what were they on? Media Watch Dog has no idea.
In any event, Comrade Crabb soon caught the Comrade Hewson habit and threw the switch to RIGHT. However, instead of saying 'you're right' to the presenter – she asked your man Marr about whether she was right. Here's an example:
Annabel Crabb : Do you know, I think that politicians are extremely used to passing and diplomatically analysing language and actions around this issue with maximum caution, right? It's like the extension of diplomatic language to every square inch of what's happening in the Middle East, right? And so, I can guess as to why the Premier [of NSW] took that approach. I don't know because I haven't talked to him about it. But I would guess that he would not want to ally himself with a bunch of extremists, right? Having memory that the last time a major landmark was involved in a march or protest memorably around this issue was right after October 7, right? Like that would be the framing I would imagine.
And so it came to pass that Ms Crabb used the word 'right' followed by a question mark on no fewer than 17 occasions – outscoring Dr Hewson who only used the term 'you're right' on 16 occasions. A pretty impressive performance by Comrade Crabb, right?
Verily, A Late Night Live Moment. AN ABC UPDATE ABC'S INSIDERS AND MEDIA WATCH IN DENIAL ABOUT MISLEADING PHOTO OF GAZAN CHILD
As documented in Media Watch Dog's previous issue, on Sunday 27 July the ABC TV Insiders program presenter David Speers, executive producer Samuel Clark – ran a photo of what was said to be a Gazan mother with her starving son. This was shown by Speers during his interview with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. The presenter described the photo as distressing and the Prime Minister commented: 'That's an innocent young boy – for anyone with any sense of humanity, you have to be moved by that.'
That's true.
However, Samuel Clark and his Insiders team had failed to do the adequate fact-checking – even though the mother in the photo looked well while her son looked seriously thin and ill. This was lazy journalism.
That was on Sunday 27 July at 9 am (AEST). On Monday at 9.15 pm (AEST) ABC TV's Media Watch (presenter Linton Besser and executive producer Mario Christodoulou) covered the story. Let's go to the transcript:
Linton Besser: There can be little cavilling, however, that children in Gaza are facing hunger – the disabled and vulnerable among them hardest hit. Powerful evidence emerging in the past week courtesy of Palestinian journalists.
But it was the images of one child which stopped the world. And a warning, these are difficult to see. These photographs of 18-month-old Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq whose emaciated body is being denied the baby formula it needs.
By early morning on Monday 28 July, Gerard Henderson's Media Watch Dog was advised by a reader that the child in the photo was not a victim of starvation.
It appears that ABC TV's Media Watch learnt about this sometime in the afternoon.
The New York Times ran the Gaza mother and child photo on Friday 24 July. On Wednesday 30 July (US EDT) The New York Times ran an editor's note which was as follows:
An article on Friday about people in Gaza suffering from malnutrition and starvation after nearly two years of war with Israel lacked information about Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, a child suffering from severe malnutrition and whose photo was featured prominently in the article. After publication of the article, The Times learned from his doctor that Mohammed also had pre-existing health problems.
Had The Times known the information before publication, it would have been included in the article and the picture caption.
The digital version of the article was also updated, and an editor's note was added to the bottom.
The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age which had run the photograph clarified the issue online – but not in the print edition. ABC TV Media Watch updated its online transcript referring to The New York Times article.
The ABC ran an article on its website discussing the controversy.
In The Australian on 29 July 2025, James Madden and Lydia Lynch wrote that the likes of The New York Times , The Age and Sydney Morning Herald had clarified the photo.
But the ABC has made no concession that its news reports featuring the photo of Muhammad, and Media Watch's analysis of the image, lacked context. Instead, the online transcript of Monday night's Media Watch episode was amended on Wednesday [30 July] night to only include reference to the clarification issued by The New York Times . The ABC made no mention of the fact that at the time Media Watch went to air at 9.15pm (AEST) on Monday, Besser and the show's producers were already aware of the claims made by [London-based journalist David] Collier about Muhammad's medical history, but chose not to mention them.
In response to questions from The Australian , Media Watch executive producer Mario Christodoulou said the program sought to verify the medical condition of Muhammad by showing the photograph of the toddler to a Sydney-based academic and asking her to provide a 'professional opinion'.
'Not being in a position to verify Collier's reporting, we contacted an authority on the subject of cerebral palsy, University of Sydney Professor Iona Novak, to garner as best an independent and professional opinion as possible in the time frame,' Christodoulou said. 'That opinion assured us that the 'photographs appear to show a child with physical signs consistent with malnutrition' as well as a potential 'neurological condition'. 'In light of this, we were very careful to make plain that it was 'the disabled and vulnerable … hardest hit', as we introduced the photograph of al-Matouq.'
ABC TV's Media Watch has a staff of around a dozen. [Can this be right? After all, Media Watch produces 15 minutes of television once a week. – MWD Editor.]
Yet it was not aware of David Collier's research which had been posted online on Sunday 27 July (London time).
Move forward one week.
Did ABC TV Insiders correct or even clarify on-air the use of the photo on Sunday 3 August? No. And did ABC Media Watch correct or even clarify on-air its own error on Monday 4 August? No, again.
And is there a correction or even a clarification on the ABC website on its 'Correction/Clarification segment'. No again. How unprofessional can the taxpayer funded public broadcaster get?
And the ABC maintains that it is Australia's most trusted news service – even though it comes in behind Network Seven and Network Nine in the evening news bulletins. SARAH FERGUSON VERSUS LEIGH SALES IN THE LOGIE WAR – AN UPDATE
As covered in last week's MWD, Sarah Ferguson and Leigh Sales were barracking against each other for a Logie in the Best Current Affairs Program category. Both urged viewers to vote for them in the lead-up, and on the 3 August the outcome was decided.
Australian Story, presented by Leigh Sales, won the Logie for Best Current Affairs Program for the third year in a row, beating the underdog 7.30.
Speaking of dogs, Bluey won the Logie for Most Outstanding Children's Program. MWD is supportive of other canines in the media industry. However, it should be noted that unlike Ellie, Bluey is a fake Blue Heeler.
FAKE BLUE HEELER BLUEY
REAL BLUE HEALER ELLIE (on the right) DOCUMENTATION BRUCE HARTNETT SILENCED BY THE AGE
Nine Newspapers' The Age in Melbourne, like its sister publication in Sydney, has demonstrated a lack of balance in its handling of the Israel-Hamas War.
Bruce Hartnett is a prominent Melburnian.
He has held important positions in the public and private sector and was an ALP life member before quitting the Labor Party last year on account of its policy on Israel.
Here is a copy of a Letter to the Editor which Mr Hartnett forwarded to The Age early in the morning of Wednesday 30 July:
Dear Editor,
The Age published a photo of a Mother holding her emaciated child, a photo that moved anyone who saw it, including our Prime Minister. The child's skeletal appearance was attributed to Israel withholding food and using starvation as a weapon of War.
Investigative work by a London-based journalist has established that the child had cerebral palsy and a number of medical conditions that accounted for his appearance.
This should have been obvious as even a cursory examination of the photo shows that neither the child's Mother nor a sibling - visible in some versions of this photo - were malnourished.
This photo was clearly another piece of Hamas propaganda accepted by the West and amplified by Western media and the "useful idiots" calling for a unilateral ceasefire.
The New York Times has apologised for publishing the photo.
Will The Age also apologise?
Yours sincerely
Bruce Hartnett AM
Alphington VIC
The Age did not run Mr Bruce Hartnett's letter to its print or online edition. Moreover, as far as Media Watch Dog can determine, The Age did not publish a correction or clarification in its print edition. And it claims to be 'Independent. Always.' Enough said. HISTORY CORNER
Set out below is an edited – and significantly longer – version of Gerard Henderson's comments to the Gallipoli Memorial Club in Sydney when introducing the inaugural Lone Pine Lecture last year. The date was 6 August 2024. GERARD HENDERSON ON AUSTRALIA AND THE FIRST WORLD WAR
Many thanks to Scott Heathwood and the team at the Gallipoli Club for inviting me to say a few words before introducing Dr Brendan Nelson – who will deliver the Battle of Lone Pine Lecture. As we know, the 6th of August is the date of the Battle of Lone Pine in 1915.
Before making a few comments on the first Australian Imperial Force's role in what was originally called The Great War – now the First World War – it is appropriate to cite the Gallipoli Memorial Club's creed:
We believe that within the community there exists an obligation for all to preserve the special qualities of loyalty, respect, love of country, courage and comradeship which were personified by the heroes of the Gallipoli Campaign and bequeathed to all humanity as a foundation for perpetual peace and universal freedom.
Loyalty, respect, love of country, courage and comradeship were fine principles when the Gallipoli Legion of Anzacs was established in 1934 – as you know, it became The Gallipoli Memorial Club in 1972. And they remain fine principles today.
It's great that Scott Heathwood and his colleagues are intent on bringing the message of Gallipoli to young Australians today.
I understand that tonight's function is being relayed to The Southport School on Queensland's Gold Coast.
I am advised that this Anglican school lost 47 old boys during the Gallipoli campaign. It's important that their sacrifice – and that of their families and loved ones – is remembered over a century after the battles on the Gallipoli Peninsula between the Allies (Australia, Britain, Canada, France and New Zealand – plus forces from India and the Gurkhas) and the Ottoman Empire (based in Constantinople).
Anne Henderson (The Sydney Institute's deputy director) and myself visited the best known sites on the Gallipoli Peninsula a couple of decades ago – Anzac Cove (25 April-19/20 December 1915), Lone Pine (6 August 1915), The Nek (7 August 1915) and Cape Helles (where British forces landed on 25 April 1915). As you know, The Nek was the location of Peter Weir's film Gallipoli .
I criticised the theme of Weir's Gallipoli in an article titled 'The Anzac Legend after Gallipoli' which was published in the June 1982 issue of Quadrant. My point was that it was incorrect for the film to maintain that the decision to charge Turkish lines at The Nek was made by British, not Australian, officers.
It has been a long time left-wing myth in Australia that – under conservative or Labor leaders – Australia has fought what were called 'other people's wars'. World War I was presented as an example of someone else's war.
This was not the case.
As a young man, I was influenced by the British military historian John Terraine who was the main script writer for the BBC 1960s documentary, The Great War and who in 1965 wrote The Great War 1914-1918.
In later years, I much valued Terraine's works To Win A War: 1918 – The year of Victory and The Smoke and Fire: Myths and Anti-Myths of War – along with his biography of Field Marshal Douglas Haig.
The Great War commenced when Imperial Germany under the leadership of Kaiser Wilhelm II invaded neutral Belgium on its way to attack France. Britain went to war to defend Belgium and France.
And Australia – which was a British dominion at the time – supported Britain. This was a decision in Australia's national interest – since Imperial Germany in 1914 was a Pacific power and the defeat of Britain would have adversely affected Australia.
I made this point in an article I wrote in The Australian on 26 April 1985 titled 'Exploding the Myth that they Died in Vain'.
In 1914 the Ottoman Empire (also called the Turkish Empire) based in Constantinople was an ally of the German Empire. Since Australia was at war with Germany – it was also at war with the Ottoman Empire. In view of this, Australia's attempt to invade the Dardanelles in 1915 was a legitimate act of defensive warfare. The same is true of the British and French forces which landed at Helles, south of Anzac Cove, on 25 April 1915.
The aim of the Gallipoli campaign was two-fold. First, to attack Germany from behind in order to take pressure off Allied forces fighting the Western Front in France and Belgium. Second, the initial idea of the campaign was also aimed at taking pressure off Russia. Russia was an Ally during the First World War – until it surrendered, following the success of the Bolshevik Revolution in November 1917, by virtue of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
In other words, the Dardanelles Campaign was undertaken with the best of intentions. Initially it was planned as a sea and land operation. However, after the sinking of some of its ships, the British Navy withdrew from the Dardanelles and the campaign was land based.
The aim of the battles at Lone Pine and The Nek were also commenced with the best of intentions – namely, to take pressure off Allied forces attacking nearby. But the Anzacs failed to break the Turkish lines at Lone Pine on 6 August 1915 and suffered devastating casualties at The Nek the following day.
As we all know, the Allied attack at the Dardanelles failed. This is scarcely surprising to anyone who visits the battle site today. The difficult terrain at Anzac Cove and elsewhere and related supply difficulties made victory all but impossible. Likewise, the British and French Forces were readily pinned down at Cape Helles and elsewhere.
The one great military success was the evacuation on 19-20 December 1915, a feat accomplished with only a few casualties. An extraordinary achievement. The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History records that Australian casualties during the Dardanelles campaign amounted to 26,111 (of whom 8,144 were killed). The New Zealand casualties amounted to 7,571 (of whom 2,431 were killed). The estimated casualties of the Commonwealth (including Australia and New Zealand) and French amounted to 120,000 and 27,000, respectively. Ottoman Empire casualties are estimated as probably 250,000.
On a night like tonight, it is appropriate to remember those Australian forces who fought in the First World War (including the dead and wounded). One was my uncle Alan Dargavel, who died in the Third Battle of Ypres on 7 November 1917 – around the time of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. His death had a huge impact on my mother's family.
To repeat, it was important to the West, including Australia, that the Allies were victorious in the First World War and to remember all Australians who made it possible – in the field of battle and on the home front. So I say, 'Long Live the Gallipoli Memorial Club'.
* * * *
Until Next Time
* * * *
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
14 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Living in Australia is just less fair than it used to be
Labor has never been in a better position to implement its national policy platform. But will the Albanese government spend the next three years using its thumping majority to lead bold reforms or deliver damp squib solutions? Next week's productivity roundtable will reveal which path the Prime Minister intends to tread, and so far, it looks like all it's set to do is weaken environment laws and delay big tax reforms until after the next election. Between the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC and the Prime Minister ruling out any major tax reforms before the next election, the government poured a bucket of cold water on any real excitement building for the productivity roundtable. And the productivity roundtable has a big job ahead of it. Australia doesn't just have a productivity problem, it has a revenue problem. Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. In fact, if Australia collected the OECD average in tax - not the highest amount, just the average - the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. To put that in perspective, it's equivalent to the combined cost of the aged pension, the NDIS, Jobseeker, and the child care subsidy, along with the total government spending on housing, vocational education, and both the ABC and SBS. It's clear that bold tax reforms are necessary. Despite being a low-tax country, Australia is still one of the richest countries on Earth. Yet many people's living standards have been going backwards. Why? Lots of reasons. The Coalition enacted policies that deliberately kept wages low. So, when excessive corporate profits drove inflation after the pandemic, the cost of everyday living rose faster than people's paychecks could keep up. Allowing multinational gas companies to export 80 per cent of Australia's gas tripled domestic gas prices and doubled wholesale electricity prices on the east coast of Australia. Climate change-fuelled extreme weather is driving up insurance costs and premiums. The cost of buying a house is now out of reach for most young people, and the cost of renting has skyrocketed, too. This is how most people experience an increase in inequality - your paycheck doesn't go as far as it used to. But those everyday cost-of-living increases obscure a larger truth about the Australian economy. It's just less fair than it used to be. It used to be that a rising tide lifted all boats. When the economy grew, Australians all shared the benefits. If you imagine Australian economic growth were a cake shared between 10 people, in the decades after World War II, the bottom 90 per cent of Australians used to get 9 pieces of cake, leaving one piece for the top 10 per cent. In the decade after the Global Financial Crisis, the richest person at the table ate nine pieces of cake, and the bottom 90 per cent of people shared less than one piece of cake between them. It's hugely unfair. There's not much point boosting productivity if a majority of working people don't get to share in the benefits. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is keen to have that debate. He described the game of ruling things in or out as "cancerous" and vowed to dial up Labor's ambition for bold reforms. And let's be clear, to reverse that path of Australia's growing inequality will require bold tax reforms. It's clear the Treasurer understands that, as well as several of the roundtable invitees, who want tax reform on the agenda at the productivity roundtable. The ACTU submission included several tax reforms, including to negative gearing and the CGT discount, but also reforming the broken Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) and replacing it with a new 25 per cent export levy on gas. Negative gearing together with the CGT discount has so warped our housing market, many young Australians have given up on every owning their own home. But it looks like the PM has put off reforming those distortionary tax concessions until his next term of government. He keeps hosing down suggestions for progressive tax reforms. To hear the Prime Minister rule out any major tax reforms before the next election is not just disappointing, it's irresponsible. There are also reports that the government is considering introducing road user charges for electric vehicles only. If we're talking road user charges, it would make sense to include heavy vehicles, which do so much damage to our roads - a vehicle that's twice the weight of a regular vehicle does 16 times the damage to the road. But heavy vehicles don't pay anything extra for that damage. But will heavy vehicles be included in any new road user charges? Doesn't look like it. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: The fact that Labor is considering slugging electric vehicle drivers with a new tax, while doing nothing to stop half of Australia's gas being exported royalty-free, tells you everything you need to know. Big tax reforms are on the table for electric vehicles, but off the table for the gas industry. Yet, according to the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC, the government will consider other major reforms. For example, it will weaken - sorry, "streamline" - our national environment laws to make development easier. And it will consider cutting "red tape" by freezing changes to the National Construction Code. Labor has a thumping majority in the lower house and it can pass progressive reforms through the Senate with the support of the Greens any time it wants. Instead, the government's productivity agenda seems to be to weaken environment laws, tax clean vehicles, cut red tape for property developers and leave the difficult tax reforms until after the next election. It's a far cry from Albanese's promise in Labor's election platform, to be a government "as courageous and hardworking and caring as the Australian people are themselves." Labor has never been in a better position to implement its national policy platform. But will the Albanese government spend the next three years using its thumping majority to lead bold reforms or deliver damp squib solutions? Next week's productivity roundtable will reveal which path the Prime Minister intends to tread, and so far, it looks like all it's set to do is weaken environment laws and delay big tax reforms until after the next election. Between the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC and the Prime Minister ruling out any major tax reforms before the next election, the government poured a bucket of cold water on any real excitement building for the productivity roundtable. And the productivity roundtable has a big job ahead of it. Australia doesn't just have a productivity problem, it has a revenue problem. Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. In fact, if Australia collected the OECD average in tax - not the highest amount, just the average - the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. To put that in perspective, it's equivalent to the combined cost of the aged pension, the NDIS, Jobseeker, and the child care subsidy, along with the total government spending on housing, vocational education, and both the ABC and SBS. It's clear that bold tax reforms are necessary. Despite being a low-tax country, Australia is still one of the richest countries on Earth. Yet many people's living standards have been going backwards. Why? Lots of reasons. The Coalition enacted policies that deliberately kept wages low. So, when excessive corporate profits drove inflation after the pandemic, the cost of everyday living rose faster than people's paychecks could keep up. Allowing multinational gas companies to export 80 per cent of Australia's gas tripled domestic gas prices and doubled wholesale electricity prices on the east coast of Australia. Climate change-fuelled extreme weather is driving up insurance costs and premiums. The cost of buying a house is now out of reach for most young people, and the cost of renting has skyrocketed, too. This is how most people experience an increase in inequality - your paycheck doesn't go as far as it used to. But those everyday cost-of-living increases obscure a larger truth about the Australian economy. It's just less fair than it used to be. It used to be that a rising tide lifted all boats. When the economy grew, Australians all shared the benefits. If you imagine Australian economic growth were a cake shared between 10 people, in the decades after World War II, the bottom 90 per cent of Australians used to get 9 pieces of cake, leaving one piece for the top 10 per cent. In the decade after the Global Financial Crisis, the richest person at the table ate nine pieces of cake, and the bottom 90 per cent of people shared less than one piece of cake between them. It's hugely unfair. There's not much point boosting productivity if a majority of working people don't get to share in the benefits. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is keen to have that debate. He described the game of ruling things in or out as "cancerous" and vowed to dial up Labor's ambition for bold reforms. And let's be clear, to reverse that path of Australia's growing inequality will require bold tax reforms. It's clear the Treasurer understands that, as well as several of the roundtable invitees, who want tax reform on the agenda at the productivity roundtable. The ACTU submission included several tax reforms, including to negative gearing and the CGT discount, but also reforming the broken Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) and replacing it with a new 25 per cent export levy on gas. Negative gearing together with the CGT discount has so warped our housing market, many young Australians have given up on every owning their own home. But it looks like the PM has put off reforming those distortionary tax concessions until his next term of government. He keeps hosing down suggestions for progressive tax reforms. To hear the Prime Minister rule out any major tax reforms before the next election is not just disappointing, it's irresponsible. There are also reports that the government is considering introducing road user charges for electric vehicles only. If we're talking road user charges, it would make sense to include heavy vehicles, which do so much damage to our roads - a vehicle that's twice the weight of a regular vehicle does 16 times the damage to the road. But heavy vehicles don't pay anything extra for that damage. But will heavy vehicles be included in any new road user charges? Doesn't look like it. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: The fact that Labor is considering slugging electric vehicle drivers with a new tax, while doing nothing to stop half of Australia's gas being exported royalty-free, tells you everything you need to know. Big tax reforms are on the table for electric vehicles, but off the table for the gas industry. Yet, according to the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC, the government will consider other major reforms. For example, it will weaken - sorry, "streamline" - our national environment laws to make development easier. And it will consider cutting "red tape" by freezing changes to the National Construction Code. Labor has a thumping majority in the lower house and it can pass progressive reforms through the Senate with the support of the Greens any time it wants. Instead, the government's productivity agenda seems to be to weaken environment laws, tax clean vehicles, cut red tape for property developers and leave the difficult tax reforms until after the next election. It's a far cry from Albanese's promise in Labor's election platform, to be a government "as courageous and hardworking and caring as the Australian people are themselves." Labor has never been in a better position to implement its national policy platform. But will the Albanese government spend the next three years using its thumping majority to lead bold reforms or deliver damp squib solutions? Next week's productivity roundtable will reveal which path the Prime Minister intends to tread, and so far, it looks like all it's set to do is weaken environment laws and delay big tax reforms until after the next election. Between the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC and the Prime Minister ruling out any major tax reforms before the next election, the government poured a bucket of cold water on any real excitement building for the productivity roundtable. And the productivity roundtable has a big job ahead of it. Australia doesn't just have a productivity problem, it has a revenue problem. Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. In fact, if Australia collected the OECD average in tax - not the highest amount, just the average - the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. To put that in perspective, it's equivalent to the combined cost of the aged pension, the NDIS, Jobseeker, and the child care subsidy, along with the total government spending on housing, vocational education, and both the ABC and SBS. It's clear that bold tax reforms are necessary. Despite being a low-tax country, Australia is still one of the richest countries on Earth. Yet many people's living standards have been going backwards. Why? Lots of reasons. The Coalition enacted policies that deliberately kept wages low. So, when excessive corporate profits drove inflation after the pandemic, the cost of everyday living rose faster than people's paychecks could keep up. Allowing multinational gas companies to export 80 per cent of Australia's gas tripled domestic gas prices and doubled wholesale electricity prices on the east coast of Australia. Climate change-fuelled extreme weather is driving up insurance costs and premiums. The cost of buying a house is now out of reach for most young people, and the cost of renting has skyrocketed, too. This is how most people experience an increase in inequality - your paycheck doesn't go as far as it used to. But those everyday cost-of-living increases obscure a larger truth about the Australian economy. It's just less fair than it used to be. It used to be that a rising tide lifted all boats. When the economy grew, Australians all shared the benefits. If you imagine Australian economic growth were a cake shared between 10 people, in the decades after World War II, the bottom 90 per cent of Australians used to get 9 pieces of cake, leaving one piece for the top 10 per cent. In the decade after the Global Financial Crisis, the richest person at the table ate nine pieces of cake, and the bottom 90 per cent of people shared less than one piece of cake between them. It's hugely unfair. There's not much point boosting productivity if a majority of working people don't get to share in the benefits. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is keen to have that debate. He described the game of ruling things in or out as "cancerous" and vowed to dial up Labor's ambition for bold reforms. And let's be clear, to reverse that path of Australia's growing inequality will require bold tax reforms. It's clear the Treasurer understands that, as well as several of the roundtable invitees, who want tax reform on the agenda at the productivity roundtable. The ACTU submission included several tax reforms, including to negative gearing and the CGT discount, but also reforming the broken Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) and replacing it with a new 25 per cent export levy on gas. Negative gearing together with the CGT discount has so warped our housing market, many young Australians have given up on every owning their own home. But it looks like the PM has put off reforming those distortionary tax concessions until his next term of government. He keeps hosing down suggestions for progressive tax reforms. To hear the Prime Minister rule out any major tax reforms before the next election is not just disappointing, it's irresponsible. There are also reports that the government is considering introducing road user charges for electric vehicles only. If we're talking road user charges, it would make sense to include heavy vehicles, which do so much damage to our roads - a vehicle that's twice the weight of a regular vehicle does 16 times the damage to the road. But heavy vehicles don't pay anything extra for that damage. But will heavy vehicles be included in any new road user charges? Doesn't look like it. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: The fact that Labor is considering slugging electric vehicle drivers with a new tax, while doing nothing to stop half of Australia's gas being exported royalty-free, tells you everything you need to know. Big tax reforms are on the table for electric vehicles, but off the table for the gas industry. Yet, according to the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC, the government will consider other major reforms. For example, it will weaken - sorry, "streamline" - our national environment laws to make development easier. And it will consider cutting "red tape" by freezing changes to the National Construction Code. Labor has a thumping majority in the lower house and it can pass progressive reforms through the Senate with the support of the Greens any time it wants. Instead, the government's productivity agenda seems to be to weaken environment laws, tax clean vehicles, cut red tape for property developers and leave the difficult tax reforms until after the next election. It's a far cry from Albanese's promise in Labor's election platform, to be a government "as courageous and hardworking and caring as the Australian people are themselves." Labor has never been in a better position to implement its national policy platform. But will the Albanese government spend the next three years using its thumping majority to lead bold reforms or deliver damp squib solutions? Next week's productivity roundtable will reveal which path the Prime Minister intends to tread, and so far, it looks like all it's set to do is weaken environment laws and delay big tax reforms until after the next election. Between the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC and the Prime Minister ruling out any major tax reforms before the next election, the government poured a bucket of cold water on any real excitement building for the productivity roundtable. And the productivity roundtable has a big job ahead of it. Australia doesn't just have a productivity problem, it has a revenue problem. Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. In fact, if Australia collected the OECD average in tax - not the highest amount, just the average - the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. To put that in perspective, it's equivalent to the combined cost of the aged pension, the NDIS, Jobseeker, and the child care subsidy, along with the total government spending on housing, vocational education, and both the ABC and SBS. It's clear that bold tax reforms are necessary. Despite being a low-tax country, Australia is still one of the richest countries on Earth. Yet many people's living standards have been going backwards. Why? Lots of reasons. The Coalition enacted policies that deliberately kept wages low. So, when excessive corporate profits drove inflation after the pandemic, the cost of everyday living rose faster than people's paychecks could keep up. Allowing multinational gas companies to export 80 per cent of Australia's gas tripled domestic gas prices and doubled wholesale electricity prices on the east coast of Australia. Climate change-fuelled extreme weather is driving up insurance costs and premiums. The cost of buying a house is now out of reach for most young people, and the cost of renting has skyrocketed, too. This is how most people experience an increase in inequality - your paycheck doesn't go as far as it used to. But those everyday cost-of-living increases obscure a larger truth about the Australian economy. It's just less fair than it used to be. It used to be that a rising tide lifted all boats. When the economy grew, Australians all shared the benefits. If you imagine Australian economic growth were a cake shared between 10 people, in the decades after World War II, the bottom 90 per cent of Australians used to get 9 pieces of cake, leaving one piece for the top 10 per cent. In the decade after the Global Financial Crisis, the richest person at the table ate nine pieces of cake, and the bottom 90 per cent of people shared less than one piece of cake between them. It's hugely unfair. There's not much point boosting productivity if a majority of working people don't get to share in the benefits. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is keen to have that debate. He described the game of ruling things in or out as "cancerous" and vowed to dial up Labor's ambition for bold reforms. And let's be clear, to reverse that path of Australia's growing inequality will require bold tax reforms. It's clear the Treasurer understands that, as well as several of the roundtable invitees, who want tax reform on the agenda at the productivity roundtable. The ACTU submission included several tax reforms, including to negative gearing and the CGT discount, but also reforming the broken Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) and replacing it with a new 25 per cent export levy on gas. Negative gearing together with the CGT discount has so warped our housing market, many young Australians have given up on every owning their own home. But it looks like the PM has put off reforming those distortionary tax concessions until his next term of government. He keeps hosing down suggestions for progressive tax reforms. To hear the Prime Minister rule out any major tax reforms before the next election is not just disappointing, it's irresponsible. There are also reports that the government is considering introducing road user charges for electric vehicles only. If we're talking road user charges, it would make sense to include heavy vehicles, which do so much damage to our roads - a vehicle that's twice the weight of a regular vehicle does 16 times the damage to the road. But heavy vehicles don't pay anything extra for that damage. But will heavy vehicles be included in any new road user charges? Doesn't look like it. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: The fact that Labor is considering slugging electric vehicle drivers with a new tax, while doing nothing to stop half of Australia's gas being exported royalty-free, tells you everything you need to know. Big tax reforms are on the table for electric vehicles, but off the table for the gas industry. Yet, according to the Treasury advice leaked to the ABC, the government will consider other major reforms. For example, it will weaken - sorry, "streamline" - our national environment laws to make development easier. And it will consider cutting "red tape" by freezing changes to the National Construction Code. Labor has a thumping majority in the lower house and it can pass progressive reforms through the Senate with the support of the Greens any time it wants. Instead, the government's productivity agenda seems to be to weaken environment laws, tax clean vehicles, cut red tape for property developers and leave the difficult tax reforms until after the next election. It's a far cry from Albanese's promise in Labor's election platform, to be a government "as courageous and hardworking and caring as the Australian people are themselves."
Sky News AU
15 hours ago
- Sky News AU
'Coal is like candlesticks' journo red-faced as NSW dithers on Eraring closure, while David Crowe's shot at President's (practice) golf round ends in a bunker of its own
Read Gerard Henderson's Media Watch Dog column every Saturday morning on The lack of professionalism among senior ABC journalists was evident again on the night of Thursday 14 August when Sarah Ferguson interviewed Mike Huckabee, who was appointed by President Trump as the United States Ambassador to Israel. He is a former governor of Arkansas – and a very senior figure in the Republican Party. Throwing the switch to activist journalism, Ferguson could not control her hostility to Ambassador Huckabee and interrupted him on eight occasions during a 12-minute interview. Moreover, on occasions, Ferguson stated her disagreement with the Ambassador and then closed the discussion down. A few examples illustrate the point: Mike Huckabee: I would say what Australia and the other countries may have done inadvertently is to push Israel towards doing exactly what they're afraid of. Sarah Ferguson [interjection]: But just talk to me about the US…. **** Mike Huckabee: In the very week that the Australian Government, along with many others, were declaring publicly for a Palestinian state, you know who wasn't declaring for a Palestinian state? The Arab League. What they were calling for, that very week, was for Hamas to disarm and to let all of the hostages go. Sarah Ferguson [interjection]: I think that I just have to interrupt you there, ambassador, because it is clear that the Arab League has welcomed this recognition of a Palestinian let's move on. Let me ask you a different question. Mike Huckabee: They weren't calling for it last week, Sarah. They were calling for Hamas to lay down their arms and surrender the hostages, and I think that it is an issue of timing. **** Sarah Ferguson: Let me ask you this question. Do you take it as a starting point for any discussion on this conflict that the idea of a two-state solution is dead? Mike Huckabee: The idea of a two-state solution is only alive if Israel and the Palestinian Authority can figure out a way to make it work. But as long as you have people chanting "From the river to the sea", as long as the Palestinian Authority continues to pay terrorists stipends for murdering Jews… Sarah Ferguson [interjection]: I think to be clear, that Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority, has committed to stop doing that. But please continue. Mike Huckabee: No, actually, he hasn't, Sarah. **** Sarah Ferguson [interjection]: Does not the United States' very large military aid, billions and billions of dollars to Israel, give you some leverage over how the war is conducted? Mike Huckabee: I guess if we wanted to tell them what to do, we would but they're our partner. We respect the fact that they were attacked on October 7. They're not the attacking country. They were the attacked country and there were 1,200 people... Sarah Ferguson [interjection]: Sure but the question here... Mike Huckabee: No, Sarah, I'm going to stop you there. Sarah Ferguson: Go ahead. **** And then, towards the end of the program, as time was running out, Sarah Ferguson decided to make her own statement on the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster after interrupting Ambassador Huckabee: Sarah Ferguson: We are running out of time but I am going to jump in there because I need to say something to the audience… Perhaps Comrade Ferguson should interview herself on the Israel–Hamas war. Can you bear it? Sally Sara – A lack of balance in the Coffee Wars On 12 August, RN Breakfast presenter Sally Sara interviewed Senator Michaelia Cash, the Opposition's shadow minister for foreign affairs. Comrade Sara was somewhat antagonistic – which became evident in the following exchange. Let's go to the transcript: Sally Sara: Are you satisfied that Israel has complied with international law in its military response to the attacks of October 7? Michaelia Cash: That is not for you and I to sit back in Australia, where we've probably both gone and had a cup of coffee this morning in our office. Sally Sara: I don't drink coffee, Senator. Michaelia Cash: Well, you know what I'm saying. It's very, very clear. We have been clear. All parties… What Senator Cash was trying to say is that it's easy to decide how to act in war-time if you are thousands of kilometres away from the hostilities. But Comrade Sara threw the switch to pedantry, and tried to ridicule Cash's colloquial comment. Compare and contrast Sally Sara's treatment of the Albanese Labor government's treasurer in her interview with Jim Chalmers on 13 August: Sally Sara: So, just to be clear on the issue of Palestinian statehood, have the principles guiding the federal government, guiding Australia, have they changed? Jim Chalmers: Well, the principle is the same, which is that we need to find a way out of this cycle of violence… I think really our view has been evolving... and that's why – and the international community's view has been evolving as well. And that's why we've seen the progress made this week. Sally Sara: Treasurer, time's against us. We will let you finish that coffee. Thank you very much. Jim Chalmers: I appreciate it, Sally. All the best. How about that? Comrade Sara treated Senator Cash's coffee reference with ridicule. But she was oh-so-friendly with Treasurer Chalmers by telling him 'We will let you finish that coffee'. Can You Bear It? David Crowe's shot at Donald Trump ends in a bunker of its own Media Watch Dog was something of a fan of Rob Harris who, until recently, was the Europe correspondent for Nine Newspapers' The Age and Sydney Morning Herald. Your man Harris was an impartial reporter who also filed some very compelling stories on individuals and organisations. What's more, Harris does not readily fit within the left-of-centre fashionable orthodoxy which pervades Nine's newspapers. When his term as a foreign correspondent was up, Harris was replaced by David Crowe. As avid MWD readers know from his past appearances on ABC TV's Insiders and his coverage of Australian politics in The Age and SMH, Comrade Crowe was part of the Canberra Bubble of left-of-centre journalists. Ellie's (male) co-owner does not always read Crowe's reports from Europe. So he was glad when an avid Bendigo reader drew MWD's attention to Crowe's report on President Donald J. Trump's golf exploits during his recent visit to Scotland. Headed 'Can we trust president's bluster on anything?', Crowe's story commenced: Donald Trump has made some big claims over the past few days – on trade, the Epstein scandal, global conflict and more – but his tough talk could be drowned out by his dubious play on the golf course. A video of the American president near a sand trap on a Scottish fairway shows one of his caddies dropping a golf ball onto the grass in a seemingly convenient location for Trump to play his next shot. The move appeared to spare Trump from the harder work of getting his ball out of the bunker and onto the green. The caddy leant down, dropped the ball behind him and walked on as if nothing had happened. Trump was able to climb out of his golf buggy and prepare to play a more favourable shot. Presidents cheat at golf; Bill Clinton was famous for it. But the video spread at the very moment Trump was engaged in big talk that raised a big question: Can anyone rely on anything he says? What a load of absolute tosh – even for a Trump antagonist like Crowe. What Nine's Europe correspondent neglected to say was that President Trump was not involved in a golf match when hitting golf balls in his golf course at Turnberry in Scotland. He was only having a hit by himself – in other words, practice shots. In short, there was no competition – and, consequently, no cheating. Trump's caddy decided to throw the president a new ball so he did not have to enter a bunker and do so himself. What's wrong with that? In any event, no one was marking the score. Crowe concluded his piss-poor 'analysis' as follows: As theatre, the president's appearance [in Scotland] on Monday combined news and entertainment in his trademark way. But it ended with the usual questions about whether his talk was just talk. His latest tariff deals are a mess of questions and confusion. His signals on Gaza and Ukraine keep changing. No deal looks certain. Can the world trust Trump? Ask his caddy. Turn it up. Why should Trump's caddy be expected to be an expert on tariffs or Gaza or Ukraine? And here's another question – Can You Bear It? John Barron misses the joke and sees racism in US politics Timothy J Lynch, who is professor of American Politics at the University of Melbourne, wrote in The Australian on 7 March 2025 that the first advice that he gave to students each year was not to watch Planet America on ABC TV. As Media Watch Dog readers know, it stars John Barron and Chas Licciardello (one of 'The Chaser Boys'- average age 49 and a half.) Thanks to the avid Hunter Valley reader who drew MWD's attention to the front page of the New York Post on 5 August 2025. The news story was this. Most rational Democrats refused to endorse socialist Zohran Mamdani for [New York] Mayor, but he does have one ally – Elizabeth Warren who appeared by his side yesterday. The two share the belief that bigger government is the answer to everything – and that lying about your ethnicity on your college application is perfectly fine. First some background. When working at Harvard University Law School, Elizabeth Warren presented herself as a Native American. And when applying to Columbia University in his 2009 college application Mamdani presented himself as black/African American. Both of his parents were born in India while he was born in Uganda. His mother is a film director and his father is a left-wing academic. This led to The New York Post's front page: 'African American Meets Native American: Mamdani and Warren in liars' summit'. Which MWD reckons is quite funny. But not the oh-so-serious Comrade Barron who saw it as, wait for it, racism. On 6 August, Miranda Devine put out this post concerning The New York Post's front page: To which your man Barron replied: Sure, Mamdani was born in Uganda, Africa – to parents of Indian heritage. As to Warren – she was born in the United States to parents who are not of Native American heritage. Yet, the humourless John Barron reckons that it is 'totally racist' to draw attention to high profile socialist Americans for fudging their background. Can You Bear It? Exaggeration of the year RN BREAKFAST does not challenge Senator Fatima Payman's unsourced claim re the Israel-Hamas war Senator Fatima Payman – who quit the Labor Party in July 2024 over its refusal (at the time) to recognise a Palestinian State – appeared on ABC Radio National Breakfast on 15 August. The Western Australian senator received an oh-so-soft interview from presenter Sally Sara – which included the following exchange: Sally Sara: Have you spoken with the prime minister or anyone senior from the government about the decision [to recognise a Palestinian state] that they've made? Fatima Payman: No, I haven't spoken to anyone yet, but I have written to the Prime Minister. Sally Sara: Would you like an apology from the government or from the PM? Fatima Payman: Look, I've let bygones be bygones. I have not, you know, regretted the decision of leaving the Labor Party. It's unfortunate that it, you know, the whole thing panned out the way it did 11 months ago. But I know that, you know, I was on the right side of history and stood by the Labor Party platform. Sally Sara: Does this, though, tell you that if you'd hung in there, the government could have been persuaded? Fatima Payman: Well, we're looking at a death toll of what, over 200,000 Palestinians according to the Lancet journal…. Hold it there. Comrade Sara did not challenge Senator Payman's allegation about Israel. For starters, Payman did not distinguish between the deaths of combatants in war and that of civilians. Moreover, MWD cannot find any evidence that 200,000 Palestinians have died in the Israel-Hamas war. In The Lancet or anywhere else. Comedy segment Shaun Micallef returns with more Eve of Destruction This week, Shaun Micallef's Eve of Destruction interview show has returned for a second season. From the ABC: Shaun Micallef's Eve of Destruction returns for another season - six brand-spankingly new episodes of existential angst, heart-rending confession, and unqualified psychoanalysis. Avid readers will recall that in 2022, it seemed that your man Micallef might be announcing his retirement. In a tweet about the end of his last ABC show Mad As Hell, Micallef tweeted: PPS Okay, it is true we'll not be returning next year, BUT this is entirely down to me, okay? After 11 years and 15 seasons, I just felt it was time for someone younger to take advantage of the resources and opportunities on offer. I'm turning 60 in a week for f**k's sake. — Shaun Micallef (@shaunmicallef) July 10, 2022 And when appearing on Frankly on 7 October 2022 he said: 'I genuinely wanted to give the microphone over to someone who was perhaps younger, or some different voices.' It is rare for anyone to actually retire from the ABC, so it was unsurprising when Micallef quickly returned with another show Shaun Micallef's Eve of Destruction. Your man Micallef has at least displayed some self-awareness about his past comments – in the trailer for the first series of Eve of Destruction on iView, Micallef said: Two years ago, I resigned from television to make way for bright, new, young talent here at the ABC. As it turned out there wasn't any, so I'm back doing a new show. Micallef addressed his comments in a Sydney Morning Herald interview with Louise Rugendyke on 7 August about the return of Eve of Destruction: 'I had wanted to do more of Mad as Hell with somebody else in the chair, and I could just produce, but that didn't work out that way,' he says. 'So this was the next – maybe better – thing to do, because it's a different animal. And maybe it wouldn't have been fair to a younger performer to have to inherit something that had been made by somebody else'. It seems unlikely a younger performer would have had a problem with inheriting a long-running, popular ABC comedy program. Especially considering that, as Micallef, Wil Anderson and others have proven, once you're in the door at the ABC you never have to leave. As MWD has long maintained, the ABC resembles the words of the Eagles' song Hotel California. In that ABC types can check out of the organisation but they never really leave. Micallef seems to have genuinely tried to get some new faces on at the ABC, but the ABC was not interested. In an interview with David Marr on Late Night Live on 4 November 2024, Micallef was asked if he had coached other comedians. He revealed that at the end of Mad as Hell, he 'did want to usher in a, perhaps a new bunch of comedians who might deal with weekly events. And I was – I offered that, my service, free of charge to the ABC'. The ABC turned down his offer. MWD advises ABC viewers who wish to see a new face, instead of more hours of Micallef, should not hold their breath. According to the ABC, there are only a handful of special people with the ability to chair a panel or conduct interviews. Really. Shane Wright and the Candlesticks As Media Watch Dog readers are well aware, Nine's Shane Wright has risen without trace (as the late Kitty Muggeridge once said about the late David Frost) to become the senior economics correspondent for The Age and Sydney Morning Herald – not having published anything of note apart from newspaper articles and columns plus the occasional essay. Even so, you would expect a person in such an elevated position to know about the international energy market. It's only a few years since your man Wright ridiculed anyone who said that coal had any future as a part of energy supply – even in such markets as India, China and Indonesia. He declared on ABC TV Insiders on 11 June 2017 that 'coal is like candlesticks' and compared those who said that there is still a demand for Australian coal exports with members of the Candle Makers Union circa 1870 who (allegedly) argued the case for candles over electricity. Now read on. NSW Energy Minister Penny Sharpe expresses concern about the closure of the Eraring coal-fired power plant The Eraring coal-fired power station on the New South Wales Central Coast was scheduled to close in August 2025 – that is, about now. In May 2024, a deal was struck between the NSW government and Eraring's owner Origin Energy to keep the plant open until August 2027, with the possibility to extend it for another 2 years beyond that. Earlier this month, during debates about expanding her powers, Penny Sharpe, the Energy Minister in the NSW Labor government, warned that the state could be headed for blackouts if and when Eraring closes in 2027. The plant still supplies about 20 per cent of NSW's power. On August 14, the Australian Financial Review reported that Origin was considering extending Eraring until 2029. While Australia extends the life of its coal-fired stations, China and India continue to build new ones. Demand for Australian coal is likely to remain strong both at home and overseas. It would seem that Penny Sharpe, Origin Energy, Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping have all failed to take the prophecy of Shane Wright to heart. MWD will keep avid readers up to date with any further developments in the fate of Shane Wright's prophecy. The ABC/Australia Institute Entente As Media Watch Dog readers know, this blog has been monitoring the ABC/Guardian Axis and the ABC/Australia Institute Entente. That is, the ready access that journalists from the left-wing The Guardian Australia and political operatives from the avowedly leftist Australia Institute (which is based in the Canberra Bubble) get on the ABC. Meanwhile, political operatives from the conservative Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne, Robert Menzies Institute in Melbourne and the Menzies Centre in Sydney have been de-platformed by the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster.[Don't you mean censored? – MWD Editor.] The Australia Institute's Deputy Director fudges her opposition to AUKUS Ebony Bennett, The Australia Institute's deputy director, appeared on the Newspaper segment of ABC TV's News Breakfast on Thursday 14 August. She spoke about a story in Nine's newspapers that morning by Michael Koziol and used the occasion to criticise the AUKUS submarine arrangement. Comrade Bennett claimed that over half of Australians are against AUKUS and want Australia to pursue a more independent foreign policy. Let's go to the transcript: James Glenday: Now the first story you've picked out is about AUKUS. What's going on? Ebony Bennett: Yeah, reports that senior people from the United States are more or less warning that Australia really needs to speak more clearly about what the US considers to be the threat from China as part of the AUKUS deal. Or it could put it at risk. Also, warnings that Australia's not spending enough on defence and from some conservative think tanks really setting the expectation that the United States expects that Australia will use the submarines it plans to buy as part of the AUKUS deal, really to support the United States foreign policy objectives. So, this is obviously a deal that's under review at the moment in the United States. And we know this is also in the context of Australians – over half of Australians – really wanting Australia to pursue a more independent foreign policy. James Glenday: We should point out I think the Australian Institute is not campaigning against AUKUS, but is certainly hoping for more scrutiny at the moment on the AUKUS deal, right? Ebony Bennett: That's right. We've got a petition at the moment for a parliamentary inquiry into the AUKUS deal…. What a load of tosh. The Australia Institute has declared that Australia should 'get out' of AUKUS. See advertisement by The Australia Institute in The Canberra Times in July 2025. It is headed: 'Australia Has An Opportunity To Get Out of the AUKUS Security Pact. WE SHOULD TAKE IT'. So there you have it. Presenter James Glenday attempted to soften the words of Comrade Bennett concerning AUKUS. He claimed that The Australia Institute was only seeking an inquiry into AUKUS. Comrade Bennett went along with this – overlooking for the moment her organisation's vehement opposition to AUKUS. Will News Breakfast do an on-air correction? Don't hold your breath – as the cliché goes. Great media u-turns of our time Historian Christopher Clark warns against false historical comparisons – before he compares President Trump with King Louis XIV Ellie's (male) co-owner just loves to be intellectually challenged when walking the said canine at Hangover Time on a Saturday morning – listening to the (somewhat pretentious) Global Roaming program on ABC Radio National. As MWD readers know, the presenters are Geraldine ('Hamish calls me Gerry') Doogue and Hamish Macdonald. On 6 August they interviewed the historian Christopher Clark, author of, inter alia, The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914. Here's how the interview commenced: Hamish Macdonald: Christopher Clark, Sir Christopher Clark, welcome to Global Roaming. Christopher Clark: Thank you very much. I'm delighted to be here. Hamish Macdonald: And I think we actually need to stress from the start you are actually Australian or originally Australian even though your accent doesn't necessarily hint at that very strongly these days. Christopher Clark: Well, I was and am Australian very much so and I still travel everywhere on my Australian passport. The interview featured lotsa one-way flattery along with much name-dropping (of the intellectual genre). The knighted Clark told listeners – if listeners there were – that 'we're coming to the end of this envelope of time that we call modernity'. Could this be because envelopes are in the process of becoming extinct? – MWD wonders. And Sir Christopher declared that there are many who believe that AI 'will serve post-human or trans-human or trans-humanist or post-humanist objectives'. Clever, eh? But what does this mean? When discussion turned to Russia and Vladimir Putin and the inevitable departure of the 72-year-old Putin, the following exchange took place: Geraldine Doogue: But while he's there, no hope [for Russia]. Is that your sort of, you know, brutal summary? Christopher Clark: I don't know. I mean, I think, you know. I don't really, I don't know. I've never met Putin. I don't really understand him. I think that he's an intelligent man. It's possible that he might – that some kind of deal with him might be possible over Ukraine. I just don't know. I don't think that either, I don't think - I think we do need to think flexibly about the future of Ukraine. It's a complex space. Yep – it sure is a complex space. MWD knows, MWD thinks. Earlier, the learned doctor told us that 'people reach back because reaching forward is an impossibility'. Well thanks for that. And then there was this (useful) warning about historical examples: Christopher Clark: To say, for example, that you know Saddam Hussein is Hitler or Putin is Hitler. Hitler's one of the favourite go to guys when it comes to these one-to-one analogies. That rarely generates understanding or increases the fund of, you know, wisdom. What it does is release emotions. Mostly emotions against the person who's being equated with Hitler... But then, towards the end of the intellectual fawn-in – there was this exchange: Christopher Clark: If you think about, for example, the way that the Western media have attuned themselves to the question of, you know, how is Donald Trump feeling this morning? Geraldine Doogue: So, it's like a monarch of the past. Christopher Clark: Well, exactly, it's like Louis the 14th. You know – the King is, is, has had an excellent digestion and is feeling well this morning. So, there you have it. Having warned against comparing President Trump with Hitler and fascism, Sir Christopher compared President Trump with King Louis XIV. Verily, A Great Media U-Turn of Our Time. Correspondence This overwhelmingly popular segment of Media Watch Dog usually works like this. Someone or other thinks it would be a you-beaut idea to write to Gerard Henderson AC (Always Courteous) about something or other. And Hendo, being a courteous and well-brought-up kind of guy, replies. Then, hey presto, the correspondence is published in MWD – much to the delight of its avid readers. There are occasions, however, when (the late) Jackie's (male) co-owner decides to write a polite note to someone or other – who, in turn, believes that a reply is in order. Publication in MWD invariably follows. There are, alas, some occasions where the well brought up Henderson sends a polite missive – but does not receive the courtesy of a reply. Nevertheless, publication of this one-sided correspondence still takes place. For the record – and in the public interest, of course. The Guardian's Amanda Meade breaks her Sky News story – six months late Ellie's (male) co-owner commenced as a weekly commentator on Sky News' The Media Show (presenter Jack Houghton) on Friday 17 January 2025 – over six months ago. It was around this time that Hendo's Media Watch Dog blog moved from The Australian Online to Sky News Online. It appears that it took Amanda Meade, The Guardian Australia's media reporter, some half a year to break this 'news' to her readers – if readers there were. She wrote about this in her 'Weekly Beast' column in The Guardian Australia, under the heading 'Old dog still barks'. The date was 25 July 2025. Which led to the following correspondence. Read on s'il vous plaît. Gerard Henderson to Comrade Meade – 12 August 2025 Good afternoon Comrade Meade My attention has been drawn to the 'Old dog still barks' piece in your 'Weekly Beast' column in The Guardian Australia of 25 July. I make the following points: You wrote your piece without checking your 'facts' with me. The Sydney Institute is not a 'right wing think-tank'. It is a forum for debate and discussion. We recently had discussions on the taxation of superannuation with Cassandra Goldie and Ross Greenwood. Tomorrow, we have a discussion on Net Zero by 2050 with someone from the Centre for Independent Studies and someone from the McKell Institute. Speakers at the Institute's Annual Dinner in recent years include Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison, Richard Marles, Chris Minns and Michelle Rowland. There is more viewpoint diversity in The Sydney Institute's program than can be found at the conservative-free zone that is the ABC or in the avowedly left-wing Guardian Australia. There were technical difficulties in The Australian carrying my lengthy Media Watch Dog blog late on a Friday. So, with the agreement of The Australian, it was taken up by Sky News. I note your comment that some videos from my appearance on Sky News' The Media Show are published by The Australian. The Sydney Morning Herald did not 'drop' my column in December 2013. I had a longstanding invitation to move my column from the SMH to The Australian. I had wanted to take up The Australian's offer. But because I had been treated well by the SMH, I stayed where I was. I was well brought up, you see. When Darren Goodsir, the newly appointed SMH editor-in-chief at the time, told me that he wanted to run my column fortnightly, not weekly, I told him that I had other options. I think that he did not believe me. I immediately contacted The Australian and commenced my column the following Saturday – having advised Darren Goodsir of my decision. He seemed quite surprised. If you had done any research, you would know that your man Goodsir in an email to staff at the time wrote: I felt that such a move [to a fortnightly column] would allow for a range of new voices to be heard in our print opinion pages and websites, while still allowing Gerard's unique commentary to also reach its audience. However, Gerard has opted for a different path and I respect that decision. Please keep reading my Weekend Australian column and my Media Watch Dog blog and continue to watch Sky News' The Media Show. Ellie, a Middle Aged Deaf Dog (with a loud bark she cannot hear), sends her regards. Keep Morale High. Gerard Henderson [MWD Editor's Note] [I understand that Ms Meade is on annual leave. It will be interesting to see if she replies. As I recall, the last time Hendo got a mention in The Guardian Australia's 'Weekly Beast' column was on 26 November 2021. Under the sneering heading 'Pell – Page Turner?', Comrade Meade foreshadowed the publication of Gerard Henderson's Cardinal Pell, The Media Pile-On & Collective Guilt (Connor Court). Clearly, the 'Weekly Beast' author did not expect Hendo's book to be read. Amanda Meade dismissed Connor Court as 'the boutique right-wing publisher.' In fact, Connor Court has published books by the likes of Michael Sexton, Michael Easson and Milton Cockburn – who cannot be seriously regarded as right-wing authors. Even by a member of The Guardian Australia Soviet. Without reading the manuscript, Meade wrote that the 'book…is all about how the ABC covered his [Henderson's] friend Cardinal Pell'. This comment was totally false. Meade also wrote that 'Henderson has been a fierce critic of ABC journalist Louise Milligan whose book Cardinal won the Walkley book award'. Chapter 6 of Cardinal Pell, The Media Pile-On & Collective Guilt contains a list of some 120 journalists and commentators who took part in the pile-on before the High Court, in a unanimous 7–0 single judgment, quashed Pell's convictions for historical child sexual abuse. The list of Pell antagonists included the ABC's Louise Milligan – along with David Marr and Melissa Davey who reported on the Pell case for The Guardian Australia. Not one of the 120 antagonists challenged anything in Henderson's book – and Milligan declined to answer any questions about the scholarship of her book Cardinal. That's what's called intellectual cowardice. The ABC declined to give Henderson's book a mention – it also 'cancelled' Frank Brennan's Observations on the Pell Proceedings. The Guardian Australia (editor Lenore Taylor) also ignored the books by Henderson and Brennan. Henderson's book is in its third edition and contains an endorsement by former High Court judge Michael Kirby. Brennan's book is in its second edition and has been well-reviewed. I believe it is unlikely that Comrade Meade will respond to your email when she returns from leave. But if she does, I hope you will see that it gets a run in your blog. MWD Editor.] * * * * * Until Next Time. * * * * *
Sydney Morning Herald
15 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Albanese's Palestinian recognition shows the world is now waiting on Trump
The United States' ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, wasn't about to repeat his private conversations with Donald Trump live on television. But he was happy to characterise what the US president and his administration thought about Australia's decision to recognise a Palestinian state this week. 'There's an enormous level of disappointment, and some disgust... This is a gift to them [Hamas], and it's unfortunate,' Huckabee told the ABC's 7.30 on Thursday night. 'The emotional sentiment [was] a sense of: You've got to be kidding. Why would they be doing this? And why would they be doing this now?' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who had been dealing with a challenging domestic response to his government's decision since Monday, had answers on Friday morning, starting with a similar feeling. 'Australians have been disgusted by what they see on their TV every night. They were disgusted by the terrorist actions of Hamas on October 7, the slaughter of innocent Israelis,' he said on ABC radio. 'But Australians have also seen the death of tens of thousands of people. When you have children starving, when you have children losing their lives, with families queuing for food and water, then that provokes, not surprisingly, a human reaction.' Albanese's decision to follow France, the United Kingdom and Canada in declaring that Australia would recognise Palestine at the United Nations next month was, in part, a human reaction to suffering as striking images of hunger came out of Gaza. Pressure was bubbling inside the Labor caucus and, just the weekend before, more than 100,000 Australians marched in protest over the Sydney Harbour Bridge and on the streets of Melbourne. The prime minister's foreign policy shift was also pragmatic: once like-minded countries made the move, there was expectation that Albanese would add to global momentum. Loading But if Albanese expected warm feedback, it was not forthcoming. Before Huckabee took aim at Australia's decision, Israel had expressed its fury, Jewish Australian groups said they had been betrayed, and even prominent pro-Palestine advocates were lukewarm. The praise, when it burst onto newspaper front pages, was not from desired sources. Instead, senior officials from Hamas, the listed terrorist organisation that conducted the October 7 attacks, praised the prime minister's move, exposing Albanese to fierce criticism and accusations of naivety. Aaron David Miller, a Middle East analyst who worked on US negotiations to end the conflict for decades, doubts next month's meeting at the United Nations will lead to the outcome Western leaders are hoping for. He says a two-state solution remains the 'least-worst option' but the time is not right, given Hamas remains in power in Gaza and the far-right Netanyahu government leads Israel. 'The Australians have had no experience in this region. The British and the French have, and they should know that the Middle East is literally littered with the remains of great powers, their schemes, their dreams, their ambitions, their peace plans,' Miller says. 'I don't see any relationship between what's being done and the impact that it will have on the current situation, let alone on bringing anybody closer to a meaningful two-state solution... Why is it the right time? There's no logical, compelling explanation. This is being done for domestic political reasons or out of moral and ethical motivations.' But the Western nations, including Australia, say a deteriorating situation has added urgency to the two-state push. 'There is a risk there will be no Palestine left to recognise,' Wong said last week. On Friday, Israeli far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich raised the stakes: he announced that work will start on a long-delayed settlement to divide the West Bank and cut it off from East Jerusalem, a move his office said would 'bury' the idea of a Palestinian state. Loading 'Whoever in the world is trying to recognise a Palestinian state today will receive our answer on the ground. Not with documents nor with decisions or statements, but with facts. Facts of houses, facts of neighbourhoods,' he said. Smotrich, a settler himself, claimed Netanyahu and Trump had agreed to the development, although there was no immediate confirmation from either. The Albanese government started laying the groundwork for this week's announcement long before that threat. Foreign Minister Penny Wong started making the case for recognising Palestine as part of a two-state process – rather than at the end of one – back in April last year. Wong said recognition had always been a matter of 'when, not if'. As accusations of mass starvation were levelled at Israel in recent weeks, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signalled a takeover of Gaza City, other nations made historic moves towards recognition. Then it became Australia's turn. 'We didn't want to be leading the pack, but we didn't want to be too slow either,' a government source told this masthead this week. Albanese said he was also reassured by recent commitments from the Palestinian Authority and Arab League. Still,backlash was swift. Israel's ambassador to Australia, Amir Maimon, said Albanese had abandoned his own conditions for recognition and would reward Hamas in the process. Netanyahu called it shameful. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry – who had been assured by the prime minister a fortnight earlier that recognition was not imminent – described it as a betrayal. Peter Moss, the co-convenor of Labor Friends of Palestine, said the move would be applauded by the party's rank-and-file as a 'historic milestone'. But a co-founder of the Labor Friends of Israel group, Nick Dyrenfurth, said some lifetime Jewish Labor members were considering quitting the party with a sense of despair. Even Nasser Mashni, the president of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, called the decision a 'cynical political smokescreen'. Many Palestinians and pro-Palestine advocates labelled recognition a distraction and instead urged the government to pursue sanctions, an arms embargo, and an end to trade with Israel. As the week continued, interjections from Hamas, a listed terrorist organisation, compounded the controversy. This masthead reported that the office of a Hamas co-founder, Hassan Yousef, applauded Australia's decision. Albanese warned media outlets not to report propaganda, and a statement issued in a Hamas telegram channel disavowed the comments attributed to Yousef, saying he was detained and cut off from the outside world. But two other senior Hamas officials soon made similar comments, calling Australia's move towards recognition a 'positive step towards the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people'. John Coyne, the national security director at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, says the complicated structure of Hamas and its leadership – now dispersed across the world, with diminished numbers in Palestine itself – made it difficult to interpret messages from the group. 'When you've got a global terrorist organisation, it's not like an elected government or public service bureaucracy. The term leadership is used very loosely,' he says. 'There are a number of senior figures and so of course, they'll all have their perspectives and at a time of chaos and change, people aspire to challenge the status quo and become the spokesperson.' But having warned Albanese over recent weeks that he was playing into Hamas' hands, the federal opposition jumped. 'Hamas is more than supporting the decision [Albanese] made, they are in full throated praise of it, they are cheering on, they are calling our Prime Minister a man of courage,' said opposition leader Sussan Ley. 'On a day when a terrorist organisation calls our Prime Minister a hero, surely he has to think about reversing the decision that led to that.' If Labor had envisioned a political win at the beginning of the week, Albanese did not show it. 'This decision is criticised by people on all sides of the debate. I expected that to be the case,' he said on the Today show on Tuesday. 'The people who are saying this is not the way forward... Ok, what's your plan? The plan of Prime Minister Netanyahu is just to continue: continue to push into Gaza, occupy Gaza City. How will that provide a resolution going forward to ongoing conflict that has been there for 77 years?' Most countries in the United Nations – 147 of 193 – already recognise Palestine. But commitments from Australia, France, the UK and Canada to recognise Palestine at a UN General Assembly meeting in New York next month add heft. Several European nations, including G20 members Italy and Germany, have not yet pledged to do so, nor have Japan and South Korea. New Zealand could be the next to add its voice, after conservative prime minister Chris Luxon this week said Netanyahu had 'lost the plot'. But analysts emphasise it is the United States that will ultimately determine whether a Palestinian state inches closer to reality or remains fantasy. 'At the end of the day, the international community can jump up and down as much as they want, but until the US agrees to accept the Palestinian admission into the UN general assembly … this concept of statehood is going to remain an idea,' says Shahram Akbarzadeh, a professor in Middle East politics at Deakin University. 'I don't see how a Trump administration could vote yes to Palestinian statehood ... I think we will see the continuation of Palestinian lives in limbo in terms of international law and international standing.' Amin Saikal, another expert, shares his scepticism. But he thinks Trump could be the wildcard that changes the trajectory of the Middle East. 'There are some elements within the MAGA movement that have called for a revision of American support for Israel,' he says, pointing to congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green, and commentators Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson. 'Trump does look at his base, and he does really take what comes out of MAGA quite seriously. At the same time, he is an unpredictable transactional leader.' Loading Trump threatened Canada's trade deal in response to its recognition of Palestine, only to walk the threat back. Before Huckabee gave his full-throttled criticism of Australia, the White House declined to weigh in, saying Trump was 'not married to any one solution'. The US president is a staunch ally of Netanyahu, but even he has lashed out at the Israeli prime minister, most recently by disputing Israel's claims of there being no starvation in Gaza. 'It may come to the point that you could see the widening of the rift between the United States and its allies is not really going to benefit the United States,' Saikal says. 'Therefore [Trump] may decide to soften his position, or put more pressure on the Israeli leadership to accept the reality of a two-state solution as inevitable and as the only one.'
