A recent article by Patricia Karvelas about a deliberately lit fire at Melbourne’s Albert Street synagogue, which has been condemned as an attack on Australia’s multicultural values, demonstrates how effective Zionist tactics are at eliciting responses from the 'commentariat'.
Generally labelled 'false flag attacks', these tactics involve either paying for or provoking attacks, with plausible deniability covering their tracks. AAP reported that the man who allegedly started a fire at a Sydney synagogue was "following instructions for a payday". Finding someone for 'attack for cash' is probably not that difficult.
But Patricia Karvelas and Tony Burke fell for it.
Which leads us to Karvelas' 'analysis' at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-07/melbourn... which I have archived.
Karvelas argues that antisemitic acts, such as blaming Australian Jews for events in Gaza, are immoral and threaten social cohesion. She rejects the false choice between opposing antisemitism and supporting Palestinians, insisting both must be addressed. The incident highlights, she argues, the urgent need for political and public commitment to protecting minority communities and preserving Australia’s multicultural identity.
Let’s unpack what’s missing, what’s assumed, and what’s quietly endorsed.
Before we start on the actual article, it’s a good idea just to check a couple of things. What is Patricia Karvelas track record on anti-Semitism, multiculturalism or Palestinian protests?
A search of the ABC on-line “Karvelas multiculturalism” reveals that since early 2024 Karvelas has apparently been silent on multiculturalism. It seems, among all the events that might invoke a sense of multicultural crisis for Karvelas is a synagogue bombing but not much else.
Likewise, any pangs of empathy that might have driven Karvelas to question acts of violence that relate to Israel appear to have been concentrated in early 2024 (searching in ABC on Karvelas Israel)
Again, one must scroll for perhaps a solid half hour through her X presence to find something that might reflect negatively on a potential genocide.
Of course, this can be construed as Karvelas honouring the journalist commission to be objective and balanced in reporting. So, what is this sudden interest in Jews, multiculturalism and Australia’s social cohesion all about?
In the end, this isn't about what Karvelas thinks about Gaza, Israel or multiculturalism. As Antoinette Lattouf has rightly noted - "a journalist has every right to express an opinion and openly, without fear of any sanctions by anyone."
Trying to understand acts of terror, protest, resistance or defiance - looking back
It’s 1943 and a small congregation of German Lutherans are worshipping in their church. Suddenly, three large men burst through the door wielding cricket bats, shouting expletives and smashing anything that could be broken. The congregation, with small children and women, cower in the pews waiting for the inevitable violence against them. But the act is demonstrative and no-one is hurt.
That same year, the Australian government arrests those worshippers and imprisons them in a camp with scant facilities. They are, the government asserts, “enemy aliens”.
In 1939, a few years before, members of the Nationalist Socialist Democratic Workers Party (NSDWP), Adelaide branch, demonstrate their allegiance to Hitler with nazi flags flown prominently in their yards and frequent meetings in which Hitler rhetoric was repeated.
As the war progresses, it becomes obvious that Hitler’s popularity was predicated on a strong wave of sentiment by most Germans. In the minds of most Australians, my father’s family included, German was synonymous with nazi. But that was not a universal prejudice. My wife’s father’s family, who grew up in South Australia and had Prussian ancestors, knew that, for the majority of German in Australia, the decision to move to South Australia was as far from political as it could be. Most were escaping the unrest that characterised Germany throughout the first half of the 20th century.
There are no easy lessons from WW2 but a proper moral analysis is still possible. Demonstrative actions that might be violent but do no physical harm to people may be frightening, but they pale into insignificance when compared to the incarceration and incineration of millions. There should be moral clarity in that.
If my righteous anger at the Catholic Church over its collusion in child abuse were to boil over into smashing windows in the local church, that is not morally equivalent to the lifetime of trauma that the victims of abuse experience. If you can’t create a scale in your head which draws lines between those actions, you have a very real problem in your moral development which probably should lead to some sort of counselling.
And, if, in your mind, Hitler and those Lutheran worshippers are lumped together as sharing some common purpose, you are likewise in need of urgent moral counsel.
Any analysis which simply wipes away the context of actions deserves to be derided, and the ‘analyst’ lampooned. Which brings us to the Karvelas ‘analysis’.
Definitions matter
First, let’s address some of the terms used in the ‘analysis’ which Karvelas assumes have universally agreed definitions. The obvious one is “antisemitism”. We have now endured over two years of the abuse of this term by Zionist lobbyists, politicians and journalists for their own purposes.
The use by politicians is usually some performative flourish at the scene, long before proper investigation can conclude a motive. Such was Tony Bourke’s statements on the steps of the synagogue. For Zionist lobbyists, the intent is to confuse the lay person into believing that all protest regarding Israel and Palestinians is protest against Jews. And the journalist finds an easy claim to make that they know that the ignorant will swallow.
Antisemitism falls within a category of hate that is common throughout the world and history. Sinophobia justified for Japanese imperialists the atrocities of Nanjing. Racism in the US brought lynchings. Genocide in Rwanda was predicated on ethnic difference.
The hate towards Jews, while entirely reprehensible, is not remarkable in terms of hate crimes throughout history. British contempt for Indians led them to believe that brown people in general were inconvenient and disposable. Let’s not mince words. Ethnic hate is a sad characteristic of nearly every culture that has existed, and we should not be surprised to find it in Australia.
This is why the project to erase hate is so urgent and necessary. And, to properly erase ethnic hate, clear eyed and frank analysis is vital. Performative rhetoric standing on the steps of a synagogue is just virtue signalling. It will not prevent a single attack.
If Tony Bourke or Patricia Karvelas actually investigated the core drivers of racism, perhaps by reading Robert Sapolsky’s “Behave: The Biology of humans at our best and worst” they would realise that we are born racist and achieve tolerance of others by exposure to them and their ways. This is the science. The way for people to understand and empathise with Jewish people is to meet them, talk to them, argue with them and become informed about them.
As I have. I’ve been to Gaza, I’ve lived in Israel. I have been a Judeophile all my life from the time I read Exodus by Leon Uris as an 11-year-old, through a period as a Zionist and then as a critic of Zionism. Anyone who makes any kind of comment on Judaism, Jews or Israel must know the subject intimately. Flippant use of ‘anti-Semitic’ is for the uninformed and ignorant.
Dubious logic
Karvelas and Burke want us to believe that a core value that Australians are supposed to hold – multiculturalism – is under threat. Burke’s “an attack on Australia” and Karvelas’ “deeply antisemitic and immoral”, “false and despicable choice” and quoting Albanese’s “antisemitism has no place in Australia” carve a path from the event to the collapse of multicultural values.
This completely ignores that the individual involved may have been confused by the deliberate conflation of Zionist and Judaism that is propagated by Zionists and repeated by mindless press agents. Chances are this individual knew little to nothing about either, but knew, in their heart, that “some people needed to be punished for murdering thousands of children”. This individual is not hating but implementing what they consider justice. They need a strong program of de-radicalisation to show them the difference between a Zionist propagating militarism, colonialism, genocide and racism, whatever their religion, and a someone worshipping peacefully.
But, as it turns out, after proper investigation by police, a political or moral motive is unlikely.
Such people do not represent Australia. They are an anomaly. The “false and despicable choice” by ‘some’ is a complete straw man. If you are informed, the supposed choice is meaningless. You know who to blame. Who exactly holds this position? Without specifying or quoting such people, there's a risk of oversimplifying or misrepresenting opposing views to make them easier to dismiss or critique.
While Karvelas rightly rejects this false binary, the article risks replacing one binary with another - framing any criticism of Israel that spills into antisemitism as necessarily part of a moral failing, potentially overlooking cases where individuals struggle to draw lines between political protest and ethnic/religious prejudice, precisely because Zionist, politicians and journalist have conflated the issues.
We are supposed to believe that attacks like the synagogue fire signal a breakdown of Australia’s multiculturalism if not forcefully resisted. They simply do not. Every day, our appreciation of each other works to make a harmonious society. There are no race riots any more. The Cronulla riots are history – by law.
Words like “immoral,” “despicable,” and “attack on all of us” are emotionally charged. And with good reason. But, unless they are accompanied by sober statistics and measured analysis, the analysis becomes performative rhetoric, obscuring nuance needed for understanding and promoting moral panic that may itself play into violent behaviour.
Emotional appeals are legitimate in journalism but weaken the analytical rigor of an argument. Supposedly, the attack reflects a wider erosion of multiculturalism. One (admittedly serious) incident is used to infer a broader societal decline. This may be true, but the article doesn’t provide data or a pattern of events to support that generalisation.
What could have been said.
Karvelas is in a position of influence and paid by the ABC. It is incumbent upon her to provide a clear-eyed and effective analysis of events. In this instance, she has failed.
Individuals or businesses that actively endorse or support a hostile foreign power must be called out as such. ABC ‘analysts’ fall over themselves to claim Chinese influence on Australia. There’s a gulf between passive identity versus active alignment.
There’s a meaningful difference between someone being Jewish and someone publicly supporting, say, the IDF’s bombing of Gaza. And this needs to headline the analysis. This needs to be soberly and seriously addressed.
individuals who publicly identify with, defend, or assist an aggressor regime during war might justifiably draw public criticism or moral outrage - even if that outrage occasionally spills over into misguided or excessive acts or violence.
Any analysis must tease out the distinction between collective identity and political complicity. The article could have done more to acknowledge that people can legitimately condemn political actors or institutions, even if they share ethnic or religious traits with members of a diaspora.
There are many ways Karvelas could have illustrated the difference between Zionist political activism (specially forms that support or excuse displacement or violence against Palestinians) and quiet, apolitical religious observance in synagogues. Without that distinction, moral and civic clarity is lost. Australians grappling with the horror of Gaza may not know where legitimate criticism ends and prejudice begins.
By failing to clarify this line, the article risks conflating criticism of Zionism with antisemitism, even when that criticism is aimed at specific political actions, not ethnic or religious identity, thus fuelling the very racism it is supposed to be criticising.
Multiculturalism must be grounded in truth, not in silence about uncomfortable cultural practices. Some critics of Islam mischaracterise female genital mutilation (FGM) as inherently Islamic. But FGM predates Islam, was practiced in various communities (including Christian ones), and must be addressed without falsely branding it as core to a faith tradition. But if any Muslim continues with the practice or condones it, they must be forcefully sanctioned by us and laws enacted to extinguish the practice, regardless of who it might offend. This is how multiculturalism will be strengthened.
We can speak about Zionist political movements and condemn the forced removal of Palestinians and those who support it without attacking Jewish identity or religious practice. But censoring those who criticise weakens multiculturalism.
Making analysis work
Moral outrage must be tempered by sober and scientifically analysis.
Karvelas’s article lacks contextual depth - particularly around the nuanced landscape of Jewish identity, Zionism, and political advocacy in Australia. While ethically motivated, it risks flattening distinctions and may delegitimise legitimate political criticism by bundling it with racist or extremist violence.
Analysis must be carefully crafted, drawing a moral line between the unacceptable (e.g. synagogue arson, racial profiling), and the understandable (e.g. moral outrage at institutions or individuals who support apartheid policies or ethnic cleansing).
Maintaining a pluralistic society requires moral discernment - the capacity of citizens to differentiate between ideological threats and cultural coexistence. This is not easy, and public commentators like Karvelas have a responsibility to equip the public with tools for such discernment, not simply deliver moral injunctions. Without that, solidarity becomes performative, and multiculturalism starts to look like a demand for silence, not shared truth.
To sum up, the ABC must take more care to make sure that analysis is really that. It is more than opinion or commentary and rarely do the performative statements of politicians cut it as material for analysis.
If Karvelas, or more importantly, the chief editor, had paused for even a moment to consider the mission of strengthening multiculturalism, they would either have sent Karvelas back for a re-write or simply canned it altogether. It is better to have silence than confuse the audience further on a issue already blurred by uninformed rhetoric and political performative statements.
Karvelas and Burke fall into Zionist trap
Nothing pleases a Zionist more than when the commentariat bleats 'antisemitism'
A recent article by Patricia Karvelas about a deliberately lit fire at Melbourne’s Albert Street synagogue has been condemned as an attack on Australia’s multicultural values.