Manufacturing fear: Fake terror as a political weapon

We are fast approaching a time when discussing the actions of Israel – or even just thinking about them – might be enough to land journalists in jail.

There was a new development during the week in the widely-reported terrorist caravan plot and threat from January – it didn’t actually exist. The fabricated nature of this alleged attack – a caravan was found on the outskirts of Sydney supposedly filled with live explosives to be used against synagogues – was clear to those who were willing to scrutinise this incident and ask the right questions. Yet, raising these doubts at the time was met with accusations of antisemitism, which provided a convenient deflection from the larger question: who orchestrated fabrication, and why?

Who knew that the plot was likely a hoax, and when did they know? It seems that the leader of the opposition, Peter Dutton, did know but either deliberately avoided a security briefing in January or has denied receiving a briefing when he actually did. The Australian Federal Police were aware at the time that the incident was highly likely to be a hoax but kept this information under wraps to avoid jeopardising their investigation into the origins of the threat which, on face value, seems to be a reasonable proposition. But if Dutton was aware early on that the incident was not real, why did he persist in pushing the narrative of a terror threat for political gain?

Throughout February, Dutton continued to exploit this “attack” to fuel anxiety within the Jewish community and amplify a rising tide of antisemitic behaviour. He repeatedly raised his alarmist rhetoric in Parliament and scored political points by constantly framing the government as weak on security, attempting to boost the Liberal Party’s ‘tough on crime and terror’ position while pushing the message that the Albanese government is incompetent in handling national security matters.

Despite the confirmation from the shadow Home Affairs Minister, Senator James Paterson, that the Liberal Party had received a security briefing, Dutton continues to deny any personal knowledge of the hoax at the time. It stretches credibility to believe that the party leader would be left out of such a crucial briefing on national security and if Dutton was truly uninformed, it then raises questions about why his own party failed to update him. More likely, he was well aware but saw an opportunity for political exploitation.

The complicity in this deception extends beyond federal politics. NSW Premier Chris Minns was also privy to the information that this incident was a hoax, yet his government proceeded to fast-track draconian antisemitism legislation in response. While combating antisemitism is, without question, an issue that needs to be stamped out, Australia already has robust legal frameworks at both state and federal levels to address racism and hate speech. The speed with which these new laws were introduced raises another question: was it forced by political agendas rather than a genuine concern for Jewish communities?

Even more troubling is the sphere of influence held by extremist Zionist organisations and Israel lobby groups in Australia, who have long pushed for increased criminalisation of criticism against the state of Israel. If this legal path continues, even journalists and commentators discussing these developments – let alone questioning them or discussing the issues of concern in an article such as this one – may soon find themselves at risk of prosecution. The effect on free speech is not speculative paranoia; it’s a clear direction in which legal frameworks are shifting.

The question of who ultimately benefits from these legislative changes and heightened public fear is critical. If the fabricated plot had instead targeted a mosque, a church, a Hindu temple, or any other religious institution, the political response would have been vastly different – we’ve seen that happen time and time again. The selective outrage and opportunistic exploitation of this event reflects a broader strategy: the manipulation of public fear for political and ideological gain.

How NSW’s reactive laws threaten civil liberties

The consequences of knee-jerk legislation extend far beyond the immediate moment of the political environment in which they were introduced. The NSW government’s rapid introduction of these new laws not only have troubling implications – they are damaging to the basic principles of democracy, free speech and civil liberties. These laws were passed, even though Minns knew the threat was a fabrication, raising concerns about the motivations behind them and the longer-term ramifications.

Once a government introduces these kinds of security measures, they are never rolled back. Even when such measures are later revealed to have been unnecessary or disproportionate, the act of attempting to repeal them would become a political minefield. Any future government that attempts to amend or remove these laws will inevitably face accusations of enabling antisemitism, even if their only goal is to restore civil liberties eroded under false pretences. This is the insidious trap of reactive policymaking: once embedded, these laws become entrenched, unchallengeable, gradually normalised, and weaponised by groups such as the Israel lobby.

The deeper issue here is that laws passed in response to hysteria or political pressure are rarely about protecting the public at large. Instead, they serve as tools of political leverage for interest groups with a vested stake in controlling public discourse. The new NSW laws effectively set a precedent that elevates one particular type of discrimination above all others, making it more difficult to critique specific political movements or international actions – particularly those related to Israel – without the risk of legal repercussions. This is not about addressing genuine hate crimes, which existing laws already cover, but about reshaping the limits of acceptable political discussion.

Once the state grants itself the power to criminalise certain opinions under the broad banner of “antisemitism”, it’s only a matter of time before these laws are used in ways that go far beyond their original intent. Activists who protest against the Israeli government’s policies may soon find themselves legally silenced, as was the case with the unlawful arrest by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the permanent resident and Palestinian student activist, Mahmoud Khalil. Academics engaging in legitimate historical analysis may be accused of incitement. Journalists who dare to investigate the political influence of foreign lobbies could be prosecuted under the very laws designed to combat extremism. This is the creeping authoritarianism that masquerades as moral righteousness, and it is precisely how democratic societies slide toward repression under the guise of protection.

The fact that these laws were introduced following a fabricated event makes the situation more unacceptable. It also raises the question: if laws can be passed based on an event that never actually happened, what else can be legislated into existence? If politicians and lobby groups can manufacture a crisis, weaponise it for political gain, and then cement their advantage through law, the danger is not just restricted to one particular issue – it is to the entire framework of democratic governance.

The broader problem with legislating based on fear is that it plays into the hands of those who thrive on division and control. The Israel lobby, like any powerful political entity, understands the value of creating an atmosphere of perpetual crisis. When the perception of threat is constant, the justification for ever-expanding state powers never disappears. Governments, in turn, benefit from having new tools to suppress dissent, regulate speech, and brand opposition as dangerous. This is why the trend of enacting hyper-specific legislation in response to politically sensitive events is so dangerous – it is not about solving a problem, but about shifting the power dynamics of public discourse in a way that is near impossible to reverse.

The NSW government has set a precedent that will be difficult to undo. Today, the laws are framed around antisemitism; tomorrow, they could be expanded to other forms of political speech. Once you establish the principle that certain criticisms are off-limits under threat of legal action, the logical next step is to broaden the scope. Could criticism of U.S. foreign policy be labeled as “anti-Americanism” and subject to the same restrictions? Could protests against military interventions be categorised as “undermining national security” and shut down? The possibilities are endless once the principle is accepted.

The most glaring irony in all of this is that far from preventing hate speech, laws like these often create the conditions for more resentment and division. When the government is seen as selectively protecting one group’s interests over the broader community, it fuels the very animosity it claims to be fighting. The public, sensing that they are being manipulated, becomes increasingly distrustful of official narratives and far from reducing tensions, such measures can push discourse underground, creating a breeding ground for genuine extremism that festers outside of public scrutiny.

Australia placates the Israel lobby while neglecting Islamic communities

The political establishment in Australia has made its allegiances clear. When it comes to support, advocacy, and policy decisions, the Israel lobby enjoys unwavering quick and bipartisan backing, while Palestinian and Islamic communities are usually met with silence, neglect, or outright hostility. From funding allocations to legislative changes, there is a massive imbalance in how these communities are treated and this situation exposes a deeper political reality: Australia’s ruling class is willing to serve the interests of Israel and its allies, even at the expense of its own social cohesion.

A Home Affairs report from November 2023 confirmed what many in the Palestinian and Islamic communities had already been feeling for years – there is no place for them in mainstream political discourse. That report warned that the one-sided political support for Israel was creating divisions in Australian society yet, instead of attempting to bridge these divides, both the government and the opposition doubled down, choosing to amplify their commitment to Israel rather than acknowledge or mitigate the social exclusion of Palestinian and Muslim Australians.

The clearest evidence of this bias is the financial support directed toward different communities. Following the October 7 attacks and the subsequent Israeli assault on Gaza, the Australian government provided $7 million to SBS and AAP to “combat misinformation” about Islamic and Palestinian communities. But instead of directing any of that funding to the very communities affected – to organisations on the ground, to Muslim or Palestinian advocacy groups, or to civil society organisations that could offer direct assistance – every cent went into government-approved media narratives. In contrast, $25 million was provided directly to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, an organisation that actively lobbies for pro-Israel policies in Australia. The message from government could not be clearer: one community is entitled to state-backed advocacy, while the other is deemed a public relations problem to be managed.

This isn’t just about money; it’s about the broader institutional landscape. Jewish community groups have the full weight of government support behind them, from new antisemitism laws to enhanced security measures, even when the threats they claim to face turn out to be fabricated. Meanwhile, documented Islamophobic attacks have doubled since 2023, and yet there has been no comparable response – no task force, no emergency funding, no high-profile government statements condemning these acts in Parliament.

Why is this happening? The Israel lobby is politically well-organised, well-funded and well-connected to both major political parties, enjoying direct ties to influential figures in media, business and government. And it has the confidence and the swagger to exploit these relationships. In a recent video exchange, David Adler from the reactionary and aggressive Zionist agitator, Australian Jewish Association, bragged to the Liberal MP, Julian Leeser, that he had compiled a dossier of the “hostile acts by the foreign minister [Penny Wong] and Labor” against Israel and the Jewish community and sent it off to the Israeli Knesset.

In contrast, Palestinian and Muslim advocacy groups have nowhere near the same level of institutional influence and their concerns are routinely dismissed as fringe or inconvenient. Even the most basic acts of solidarity – such as calling for a ceasefire in Gaza – have been met with political cowardice from Labor and outright hostility from the Liberal–National Coalition.

Even when Israel launched one of the most brutal military assaults in recent history, killing at least 46,000 Palestinians, including thousands of children, Australia’s political class refused to shift its stance. Instead, it issued weak statements about Israel’s right to defend itself and repeatedly blocked even symbolic measures of support for Palestinian civilians. This unwavering support continued even as international legal bodies began investigating Israel for war crimes. No such hesitation would have existed if the situation were reversed – if an Arab state were inflicting such mass atrocities, Australia would have been at the forefront of diplomatic condemnations and sanctions.

This is not just an issue of fairness; it is an issue of democracy. A society that selectively protects one group while neglecting or demonising another is not a free society. A government that aligns itself with a powerful foreign-backed lobby at the expense of its own citizens is not acting in the national interest. And a political class that criminalises legitimate criticism while allowing real discrimination to go unaddressed is failing in its most basic responsibilities.

The reality is that this dynamic will not change by itself. The entrenched power of the Israel lobby in Australia ensures that political and media institutions will continue to serve its interests unless a serious challenge to this dominance emerges. This challenge will not come from within the political class – it will have to come from the public, from activists, from independent media, and from the communities that have been abandoned by those who claim to represent them.

Until this changes, the message remains clear: in the eyes of Australia’s political establishment, some communities are worth protecting, and others are expendable. The growing anger, frustration, and disillusionment among neglected communities will not simply disappear – it will continue to build, and when it reaches a breaking point, the political class will have no one to blame but itself.