At the brink of occupation: confronting a changing narrative

Since October 7, 2023, the way Australia has talked about Israel and Gaza has shifted again and again, each time moving the so-called “red line” further away from where it once stood.

In those first days, the shock was overwhelming. The brutality of Hamas’s attack — the slaughter of civilians, the kidnappings, the taking of hostages — drew widespread condemnation. Political leaders across the spectrum expressed solidarity with Israel. Headlines focused on the victims and hostages, and the public mood, while not without dissent, leaned toward Israel’s right to defend itself.

But that moment did not last. As Israel’s military response intensified, the images from Gaza — flattened neighbourhoods, wounded children, overcrowded hospitals — began to dominate the news cycle and surge through social media algorithms. These algorithms, designed to reward outrage, prioritised the most shocking and emotionally charged content, often without context or verification. The conversation shifted. No longer was the emphasis on October 7; instead, it turned toward the humanitarian crisis. The red line moved: criticism that was once reserved for Israel’s “disproportionate” use of force now became questioning the very legitimacy of its campaign.

By early 2024, protests were swelling across Australian cities, political rhetoric was softening toward the Palestinian cause, and humanitarian framing had become the dominant public narrative. Calls for Israel to “stop the war” became mainstream, even from those who had condemned Hamas months earlier. Another red line had shifted — from supporting Israel’s right to act, to demanding it halt altogether.

Now, in August 2025, the shift is happening again. Israel’s security cabinet has approved plans to take Gaza City and ultimately the entire Strip. For supporters, this is a necessary step to dismantle Hamas and secure the future. For critics — governments, NGOs, much of the media — this is the moment Israel becomes, in their eyes, an outright occupying power. The language of “self-defence” is being replaced by “occupation” and “control,” and this will frame how much of the broader community talks about Israel from here on.

For the Jewish community in Australia, this is the challenge we must prepare for. We are no longer in the immediate aftermath of October 7, when sympathy was instinctive. We are now operating in an environment where the red line has been pushed so far that any Israeli action is met first with suspicion, often with outright condemnation. We are engaging in a public conversation that increasingly begins from the presumption of Israel’s guilt — a conversation fuelled by platforms that amplify the loudest, most extreme voices.

We should expect that with the occupation of Gaza City, the pressure will intensify — in politics, in the media, and on the streets. Protests will grow louder, social media campaigns more aggressive, and accusations of apartheid and ethnic cleansing will be repeated as fact. Antisemitic incidents, which have already spiked since the war began, are likely to rise again. Our schools, community centres, and places of worship will be drawn further into a debate we did not choose but cannot avoid.

That does not mean retreating from the conversation. It means preparing for it. We will need to explain, with clarity and credibility, why Israel acts as it does — not to those whose hatred is immovable, but to the large number of Australians whose understanding of the conflict comes from headlines, hashtags, and protest slogans. We will need to acknowledge humanitarian suffering while refusing to allow October 7 to be erased from the narrative. And we will need to do it knowing that the red line will likely shift again, and not in our favour.

From October 7 to now, each stage of this conflict has seen the goalposts moved, the definitions rewritten, and the public mood recalibrated. At the brink of occupation, we face not just the political and military implications for Israel, but the steady rewriting of the moral framework in which our community must advocate for it — and for ourselves — in an information environment where outrage is amplified, context is stripped away. The loudest voices drown out the truth.

If we are to be heard, we must meet this moment with strategy, discipline, and courage. That means refusing to let others set the terms of the debate, refusing to allow October 7 to fade into the background, and refusing to cede the language of morality to those who would use it against us. The red line has shifted time and again — but if we adapt quickly, speak with moral clarity, and stand united in the public square, we can hold the line where it matters most: in the hearts and minds of the Australians who are still willing to listen, with Israel and the Jewish community.

Michael Gencher is the Executive Director of StandWithUs Australia