Israel revokes visas for some Australian diplomats
The Australian government said it had cancelled the visa of a lawmaker from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's governing coalition who has advocated against Palestinian statehood and called for Israel to annex the occupied West Bank.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said Australia's ambassador to Israel had been informed that the visas of representatives to the Palestinian Authority had been revoked.
Like many countries, Australia maintains an embassy to Israel in Tel Aviv and a representative office to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank city of Ramallah.
"I also instructed the Israeli Embassy in Canberra to carefully examine any official Australian visa application for entry to Israel," Saar wrote on X, describing Australia's refusal to grant visas to some Israelis as "unjustifiable".
Australia's government did not immediately comment.
The Palestinian foreign ministry issued a statement condemning Israel's decision as illegal and "in violation of international law.
Australia is set to recognise a Palestinian state next month, a move it says it hopes will contribute to international momentum towards a two-state solution, a ceasefire in Gaza and the release of hostages held by Palestinian militants in Gaza.
Simcha Rothman, a parliamentarian from the Religious Zionism party led by far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, had been scheduled to visit Australia this month at the invitation of a conservative Jewish organisation.
Rothman said he was told his visa had been cancelled over remarks the Australian government considered controversial and inflammatory, including his assertion that Palestinian statehood would lead to the destruction of the state of Israel and his call for Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank.
"Nothing that I said personally has not been said over and over again by the vast majority of the public in Israel and the Government of Israel," Rothman told Reuters by phone.
Rothman said he had been informed that his views would cause unrest among Australian Muslims. Asked about Canberra's decision on Palestinian statehood, Rothman said that would be a "grave mistake and a huge reward for Hamas and for terror".
Australia's Minister for Home Affairs Tony Burke said in an emailed statement that the government takes a hard line on those who seek to spread division in Australia, and that anyone coming to promote a message of hate and division was not welcome.
"Under our government, Australia will be a country where everyone can be safe, and feel safe," he said.
The Home Affairs Ministry declined further comment.
Rothman had been invited by the Australian Jewish Association to meet members of the Jewish community and show solidarity in the face of "a wave of antisemitism," AJA Chief Executive Robert Gregory said.
In June, Australia and four other countries imposed sanctions on Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir over accusations of repeatedly inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
a few seconds ago
- The Guardian
Nine students trapped in Gaza will get help to take up places at UK universities
Nine students in Gaza with full scholarships to study at British universities have been told the UK government is working to facilitate their evacuation. The students – who have all been awarded Chevening scholarships, funded by the Foreign Office in recognition of their potential as future leaders – welcomed the development on Wednesday, but dozens more Palestinians in Gaza with university places are still awaiting news. The breakthrough follows months of advocacy and campaigning by more than 100 MPs, university leaders and other civil society organisations. More than 80 Palestinian students in total have offers at UK universities, including 40 who have secured full scholarships. Dr Nora Parr, a researcher at the University of Birmingham who has been coordinating efforts to support the students, said: 'We received news of the government plans with mixed emotions. On the one hand, relief that indeed there is a shared sense of the importance and urgency of the students' situation – and on the other our hearts sank. What about the rest? We must believe that this is only a start.' Khulud, 28, who has a place at University College London to study for a master's degree in dental health, said: 'Receiving the news about the evacuation today was overwhelming.' The students have been unable to travel and begin their studies because of a Home Office requirement for biometric data for a visa application. The UK-authorised biometrics registration centre in Gaza closed in October 2023 and it has been impossible for them to travel to other centres in neighbouring countries. Other countries, including Italy, Ireland and France, have already evacuated students. It is understood the British government is considering requests for support from other Palestinian students with places at UK universities. 'Through all these struggles, our voices are finally being heard,' said Khulud. 'Nothing we have endured has been in vain. I hope these steps are completed smoothly so that we can join our studies on time.' Of her fellow students who are still waiting, she said: 'I hope their determination is recognised, and that they too receive the support they deserve to continue their studies and achieve their dreams.' Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion A government spokesperson said: 'We are working urgently to support Chevening scholars in Gaza who have offers from British universities to leave and take up their places in the UK. 'We are doing everything we can to support their safe exit and onward travel to the UK but the situation on the ground in Gaza makes this extremely challenging.'
Reuters
a few seconds ago
- Reuters
US judge rejects Trump administration challenge to Illinois E-Verify law
Aug 20 (Reuters) - A federal judge in Chicago has dismissed a bid by the administration of Republican President Donald Trump to bar Illinois from restricting employers' use of a federal program that electronically verifies eligibility to work in the United States. U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman on Tuesday said, opens new tab an Illinois law imposing a series of requirements on employers who use E-Verify falls within the state's power to regulate employment and does not interfere with the federal government's enforcement of immigration laws. Trump, a Republican, has made immigration enforcement a centerpiece of his second term. His administration has stepped up arrests of immigrants, cracked down on unlawful border crossings and stripped legal status from hundreds of thousands of migrants. Coleman denied the administration's motion for a preliminary injunction blocking the law, which took effect in January, and granted a motion by Illinois to dismiss the case. "The federal government's broad interpretation of its power to regulate matters of immigration would swallow the historic powers of the states over employment-related issues," wrote Coleman, an appointee of President Barack Obama, a Democrat. The U.S. Department of Justice and the Illinois Attorney General's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. E-Verify was established in 1996 to help companies avoid hiring people who are in the United States illegally and lack authorization to work. The program compares work eligibility forms filled out by workers, known as I-9s, with records maintained by the federal government. E-Verify is voluntary on the federal level, but 10 states require all or most employers to use it and about a dozen others mandate it for government contractors. California and Illinois are the only states that restrict the use of E-Verify. The Illinois law, called the Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act, bans employers from using the program to check the immigration status of existing employees and requires them to post notices about E-Verify in the workplace. It also requires employers to notify workers when federal authorities are conducting an audit of their immigration status and allow them to address any discrepancies in their paperwork. The Trump administration in its lawsuit claimed that because the law discourages employers from using E-Verify, it disrupts federal immigration enforcement and is preempted by federal law. Coleman on Tuesday said that argument was "broad to the point of absurdity." If the administration were correct, it would mean that states also could not mandate the use of E-Verify and that various other state employment laws that have been upheld by courts would be invalid, she said. The case is United States v. Illinois, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, No. 1:25-cv-04811. For the United States: Elianis Perez of the U.S. Department of Justice For Illinois: Darren Kinkead of the Illinois Attorney General's Office Read more: Trump's immigration enforcement record so far, by the numbers
Reuters
a few seconds ago
- Reuters
US appeals court sides with medical marijuana users in challenge to gun ban
Aug 20 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court ruled on Wednesday that a federal law that bars illegal drug users from owning guns potentially could be deemed unconstitutional when it is applied to medical marijuana users. A three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, opens new tab that a group of Florida residents who use medical marijuana had plausibly alleged that the law as applied to them violates their right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment. It relied on the 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen holding that gun restrictions must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." The Florida plaintiffs, who originally sued alongside then-Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, a Democrat, before she left office, argued that keeping guns from users of medical marijuana in states that have authorized its use is not consistent with that historical tradition. Florida legalized medical marijuana in 2016. While the drug remains illegal at the federal level, the plaintiffs noted the U.S. Department of Justice is barred under the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment from using funds to interfere with state medical marijuana programs, including to prosecute individuals. The U.S. Department of Justice argued that barring marijuana users from having guns was nonetheless consistent with a long-standing tradition of disarming convicted felons or dangerous individuals. A lower-court judge agreed. But U.S. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Branch, writing for the panel, said at most, the plaintiffs were committing a federal misdemeanor by using marijuana, had not had been convicted of a crime and not been shown at this stage in the case to pose such a danger as a result of their drug use they should be disarmed. "Accordingly, the Federal Government has failed, at the motion to dismiss stage, to establish that disarming Appellants is consistent with this Nation's history and tradition of firearm regulation," she wrote. Branch said her opinion was consistent with a decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year holding that a pot-smoking gun owner in Texas could not be constitutionally prosecuted for violating the federal ban. Her opinion was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Luck, a fellow appointee of Republican President Donald Trump, and Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Gerald Tjoflat, an appointee of Republican President Gerald Ford. William Hall, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at Jones Walker, in a statement welcomed the ruling, saying it vindicated their position. "As we have argued from the beginning of this case, the 2nd Amendment does not permit the federal government to categorically deem all medical marijuana patients to be too dangerous to exercise their core constitutional rights," he said. The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment. The case is Florida Commissioner of Agriculture v. Attorney General of the United States, 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 22-13893. For the plaintiffs: William Hall of Jones Walker For the federal government: Steven Hazel of the Justice Department Read more: Marijuana user cannot be banned from gun ownership, US court rules Medical marijuana users challenge federal gun ban at US appeals court
