When Australia decided to repatriate women and children from Syrian camps linked to the Islamic State (ISIS), the government presented it as an exercise in national responsibility, carefully managed and security led. But ISIS was no ordinary insurgency, it was a death cult, broadcasting beheadings of Western hostages and glorifying mass casualty terrorism. To welcome back its adherents, along with children born and raised in that ideological furnace, is to take a calculated risk that ordinary Australians should not be willing to accept.

That risk is far from hypothetical. The father and son who carried out the Bondi Hanukah terrorist attack in December were inspired by ISIS ideology. The ISIS flag was allegedly found in their vehicle after the attack. Any rhetoric from Albanese’s government that the ISIS brides will be “monitored” is futile. The son who carried out the Bondi attack was already on ASIO’s watchlist. What use was that? Bluntly: the ISIS brides, who demonstrate how un-Australian they are, should never be allowed to return. No assurances or political messaging can guarantee that Australia will not see another ISIS inspired attack. For ordinary Australians, the grass is not greener with such individuals on our soil. Performative virtue signaling serves no national security purpose, it only erodes public trust.

Sydney GP Jamal Rifi, a supporter of Albanese who also campaigned for Tony Burke in the last federal election, has been involved overseas in supporting aspects of the repatriation effort. Advocates say involving respected Muslim community figures demonstrates practical cooperation focused on deradicalization and reintegration. Critics, however, argue it underscores the political sensitivity of the issue and how symbolically charged it has become, sometimes veering into virtue signaling. There is no guarantee that ISIS brides will not engage with extremist Islamic preachers such as Wissam Hadad or Sheikh Dadoun in Western Sydney. Even with the recently strengthened hate laws supplementing existing legislation, prosecutions remain rare. Tony Burke seems to forget his responsibility is to the safety and security of all Australians, not to his voter base which often stands in conflict with one another.

At the same time, Australia granted roughly 3,000 temporary visas to Palestinians affected by the Gaza conflict. Reports suggest many of these visas were processed in under 24 hours and with little to no vetting of identity, security background, or character despite schools indoctrinating children since Hamas took control over Gaza to hate and instill inspirations to martyrdom (suicide bombings and murder of Israelis and westerners). The government presented this as humanitarian, but for critics it highlights a glaring contrast in treatment: Palestinians fleeing conflict could secure rapid entry, while visitors from a democratic ally faced protracted scrutiny and exhaustive questioning.

Now consider the experience of many Israeli citizens applying simply to visit Australia since October 2023. Formally, the system remains the same. Applications are lodged through the framework overseen by the Department of Home Affairs. The initial form typically takes two to three hours to complete. Yet many Israelis, particularly those who have served in the Israel Defense Forces, as most Jewish Israeli adults have due to compulsory service, report receiving detailed supplementary questionnaires requesting granular information about units, deployments, ranks, and operational conduct.

In Israel, much military information is classified or legally sensitive. Former personnel are often restricted in what they may disclose. Being asked to provide detailed operational accounts to a foreign government can place applicants in an uncomfortable position. What appears to Australian officials as prudent, or ideological vetting can feel, to the individual, like intrusive suspicion directed at ordinary citizens of a democratic ally.

Israel cooperates closely with Western partners, including Australia, on counter-terrorism and intelligence sharing. Meanwhile, Australian authorities have investigated extremist rhetoric and alleged foreign interference linked to overseas actors, including concerns surrounding Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. In a development that underscores the inconsistency of Australia’s immigration and national-security policies, Hanieh Safavi, the daughter of Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, a founder of the IRGC and adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, involved in Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs — was granted Australian permanent residency. Safavi arrived on a student visa and later secured a skilled independent visa, despite her father being sanctioned and the IRGC recognized as a terrorist-linked organization. Critics have urged a review of her status amid concerns over links to extremist activity and attacks on Jewish sites in Australia. By contrast, Albanese appears to be appeasing terrorist regimes rather than supporting an ally whose counter-intelligence helped thwart a terrorist attack on an Etihad flight out of Sydney. The security landscape is complex and volatile.

The security landscape is complex and volatile. Tony Burke holds broad discretionary powers to refuse or cancel visas on character grounds. Those powers exist to protect Australians and that must remain paramount. The debate is not about whether vetting should occur, but whether it is applied proportionately and consistently.

Public confidence in immigration policy depends on a clear sense of balance. If Australians perceive that individuals once associated with extremist movements are managed and reintegrated, while visitors from a democratic ally face exhaustive scrutiny because of compulsory national service, questions will inevitably arise. Governments cannot eliminate risk entirely. But they can ensure that their first responsibility, the safety and security of Australians is pursued with even-handedness, clarity, and strategic judgment.

The stakes could not be higher. The ISIS brides returned after joining a death cult that glorified beheadings of Westerners. Their children, born overseas and indoctrinated in that ideology, remain a continuing security concern. Any claims that the government can fully “monitor” these individuals are naive. The son involved in the Bondi attack was already on ASIO’s watchlist. What use was that? Albanese’s assurances and public posturing are little more than optics, and ordinary Australians are left to bear the risk. Extremist proxies like the IRGC have already been linked to attacks on Jewish sites. The grass was not greener in Syria, and it is certainly not greener here. Albanese’s government demonstrates again that performative virtue signaling is no substitute for real security.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)