Gregory: A Champion of Oppression and Lies

Remaining astounded by the overwhelming cheerleading The Australian Newspaper exhibits toward the war crimes Israel is committing and its genociding of the Palestinian people wore off long ago. But the element of stupidity in who it allows to voice their views remains disturbingly shocking.

‘The Israelian’—I mean The Australian—has outdone itself again, reaffirming its lack of moral integrity as a newspaper.

In a recent piece entitled “It’s time the West stopped infantilising Palestinians,” the CEO of the Australian Jewish Association, Robert Gregory, proposes an inexcusably disturbing and myopic narrative that seeks to absolve Israel of its oppressive actions while vilifying Palestinians for daring to resist.
Gregory’s argument, shrouded in the language of accountability, deliberately ignores the realities of Israel’s apartheid, occupation, and the historical and ongoing denial of Palestinian self-determination.

His central claim, the West “infantilises” Palestinians by providing aid and rebuilding Gaza post-conflict isn’t only pathetic but demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of international law and human rights. Palestinians aren’t being “infantilised”; they’re being systematically dehumanised and denied basic freedoms. The aid provided to Gaza isn’t a handout—it’s a necessary response to the humanitarian crises caused by repeated Israeli military offensives.

The framing of Palestinians as perpetual welfare recipients ignores the structural violence imposed by Israel, including the siege of Gaza, which has crippled the region’s economy and forced its people into dependence. The reality is Israel’s blockade has rendered Gaza an open-air prison.

But Gregory shouldn’t be quick to point the finger at Palestinians as welfare recipients. Israel itself has been an eternal welfare recipient of the US for decades, in every way possible. Israel has always been a freeloading nation.

Gregory’s referral to Palestinian actions as “failed wars” launched against Israel is a characterisation that dismisses the fundamental truth: these aren’t wars of aggression but acts of resistance against a colonising power. International law recognises the right of an occupied people to resist their occupiers, and the Palestinian struggle is a textbook case of resistance to occupation and apartheid.

Since 1948, Palestinians have endured dispossession, ethnic cleansing, and systemic oppression. Gregory’s assertion that the October 7 attacks “buried” the idea of a Palestinian state overlooks decades of Israeli policies designed to make such a state impossible. The expansion of illegal settlements, annexation of Palestinian land, and the institutionalised discrimination against Palestinians serve to undermine the viability of a two-state solution.

Gregory’s comparison of Gaza to post-World War II Germany and Japan is as ahistorical as it is offensive. Unlike Germany and Japan, which were aggressor nations defeated in global wars, Palestinians are an indigenous people fighting for their right to exist in their homeland. This analogy erases the asymmetric nature of the conflict, where one side wields overwhelming military power and the other fights for basic survival.

Additionally, the suggestion Palestinians must “internalise” their defeat mirrors colonial attitudes that demanded people subjugated accept their oppression as a permanent condition. Such rhetoric ignores the underlying causes of the conflict and perpetuates the cycle of violence by denying Palestinians their agency and humanity.

A glaring omission by Gregory is the acknowledgement of Israel’s apartheid policies. Numerous human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have documented how Israel’s policies meet the legal definition of apartheid. Palestinians face systemic discrimination in access to land, housing, education, and freedom of movement, both in the occupied territories and within Israel itself.

The international community’s condemnation of these policies is not an act of “infantilisation” but a necessary stance against injustice. Gregory’s call to abandon the Palestinian cause under the guise of “realism” is nothing more than an attempt to whitewash these crimes.

Gregory’s assessment of international aid to Gaza also misrepresents its purpose and impact. Aid isn’t a reward for “failure,” as Gregory suggests, but a lifeline for a population deliberately impoverished and displaced by Israeli policies.

Rather than blaming Palestinians for their dependency on aid, he should address the structural conditions—namely, Israel’s occupation and blockade—that necessitate such assistance.

Furthermore, his attack on UNRWA as a perpetuator of the conflict is as nonsensical as it is pathetically ridiculous. Dismantling UNRWA, as Gregory proposes, would exacerbate the humanitarian crisis and further destabilise the region.

The solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict does not lie in abandoning Palestinians or forcing them to accept their oppression. True peace requires justice, accountability, and the dismantling of the structures of apartheid and occupation.

Gregory’s wildly insane piece facilitates harmful myths and ignores the realities of Palestinians under occupation. Far from infantilising them, the West’s support for Palestinian rights is a necessary response to decades of systemic injustice. Framing this support as enabling a “fantasy of ideological supremacy” distorts the truth and denies the humanity of an oppressed people.