Criticism Is Not Hatred
Israel, antisemitism, and why this moment matters
I’ve deliberately refrained from commenting publicly on the Bondi attack, the calls for a Royal Commission, and the new hate-speech laws. Not because these issues don’t matter — but because moments like this demand care, precision, and restraint.
That said, staying silent now feels riskier than speaking.
For decades, countries like Australia, the UK, Canada and France have been among Israel’s most reliable diplomatic supporters. They routinely aligned with Israel in international forums and framed that support through a shared ‘Western values’ lens. Over the past year, that position has begun to shift. These same countries have joined much of the rest of the international community in recognising Palestinian sovereignty — a significant break from long-standing policy.
This shift didn’t occur because these governments suddenly became sympathetic to Palestinians. It occurred because the scale of destruction in Gaza, the entrenchment of occupation in the West Bank, and Israel’s open rejection of Palestinian statehood have made the old position increasingly untenable — both internationally and domestically.
At the same time, debate at home is narrowing. The concern is not about confronting genuine antisemitism — that must be done — but about the growing tendency to conflate criticism of a state with hatred of a people. That distinction matters. Losing it is dangerous for democratic debate and social cohesion.
In this video, I try to step back from the noise and look at the broader picture: the geopolitical shifts underway, the pressures shaping public discourse, and why moments like this are often accompanied by heightened internal division.
You can watch the full video here:
As always, thoughtful disagreement is welcome. My aim is not to inflame, but to slow the conversation down and look at what’s actually changing beneath the surface.
#TheVoicesOfWar


This framing around the criiticism/hatred distinction is super important for public discourse. The conflation you're highlighting is what makes constructive policy debate nearly impossible because every substantive critique gets recast as bigotry. I saw similar dynamics in other contexts where state actions and identity get merged together to short-circuit disagreement, which just accelerates polarization rather than addressing the actual geopolitical issues.