Due to divided loyalty between Australia and Israel, risk of being influenced by the Mossad, and failure to disclose interactions with Israelis, a Jewish Australian Army Reserves officer’s security clearance was on Thursday recommended to be revoked in an Administrative Review Tribunal ruling.
The ruling came in response to an appeal by the officer against a 2023 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) Adverse Security Assessment recommending stripping Negative Vetting Level 2 security clearance because of concerns over his loyalty to Australia, susceptibility to foreign influence, and compliance with security holder obligations.
Based on two interviews with the officer, ASIO had determined that he had demonstrated a higher level of loyalty to Israel than Australia. The tribunal concluded that the officer held “divided loyalties between his obligations as a security clearance holder and his faith and Jewish cultural identity,” though noted that he had not been disloyal to Australia.
ASIO said that the officer had stated in a 2022 interview that he “loves Israel,” felt a “natural solidarity with Israel,” and, as a Jewish person, has “loyalty to Israel.” He also used “we” in relation to his discussion of Israeli politics. Individuals with backgrounds associated with foreign states are attractive recruitment prospects, according to ASIO.
While in the interview, the officer stated that he would not transfer information to Israel “Concerning Australian capability and Australian interest,” he also said that if it were “neutral” information or about a third party, he would notify ASIO about passing on the information.
Unfair scrutiny
The officer told the tribunal that it was unfair to question him about information that might cause significant loss of life and that most people might be troubled by such a question if the foreign country was not an enemy.
A former ASIO officer testified that the officer believed the two countries to be allies and seemed to be in a conflict of loyalties or that Australian and Israeli interests could diverge. The officer’s naivety about a potential conflict of loyalties and interests was in of itself a security risk, said the ASIO witness.
“We kind of view a loyalty to Israel as not being conflicting with Australia,” the officer said in an interview. “I think Israel – even if they were to have that information, I mean, Israel and Australia, we’re sort of – we’re friends – to my knowledge, we’re in alliance.”
The officer argued to the tribunal that he had been loyal to the Australian military and had served 19 years to contribute to his country, and that his “strong connection to the land of Israel and the state of Israel no way conflicts with my identity as an Australian and I would never act in any way disloyal to Australia. I never have on any occasions been disloyal to Australia nor do I intend to in any way be disloyal to Australia.”
The officer contended that it was discriminatory to deny a Jewish employee their Judaic affinity with Israel.
“Judaism mandates the loyalty of a Jew to his people and to the Land of Israel. ASIO would be well aware that most Australian Jews do not volunteer to serve in the ADF. The vast majority of Jews in Australia, if they do serve in any national army, serve in the IDF. I elected to serve in the ADF as I felt a strong sense of belonging to Australia and I wanted to give back to the country and demonstrate the importance of serving here in Australia as opposed to the IDF. It seems that events have now turned on me,” the officer said. “The Australian Government is aware that every Jew harbors a varying degree of loyalty to Israel. Some have a higher and more overt level of loyalty than others. This is the latent risk that the Australian Government must naturally accept when employing Jews.”
The tribunal rejected claims of discrimination, stating that it was his conduct that raised security concerns, not his Jewish identity.
The officer, who enlisted in the Australian Defence Force in 2004 and the reserves in 2013, had also volunteered with the Sydney Community Security Group since 2014. While ASIO acknowledged that volunteering with the group did not alone merit security clearance revocation, the officer did not disclose to the military that with the Jewish community group the officer had traveled to Israel to participate in low-level security training. The officer said in interviews that the trainers were ex-Israeli intelligence, and that the program was hypothetically fertile ground for the Mossad recruiters. Potential interactions with foreign intelligence officials and the failure to inform ASIO was a violation of the officer’s security clearance obligations. The tribunal said that the officer’s belief that CSG and ASIO operated “under the same umbrella” did not diminish his disclosure obligations. ASIO said that he had been told to conceal his CSG training, but the officer asserted that this was regarding communication with family and friends, not the Australian government.
The officer also broke confidentiality by sharing details of his first 2020 interview with the head of the Sydney CSG.
The applicant was the administrator of The Land of Israel Facebook page, and was in contact with activists in Israel. ASIO argued that such contacts should have been disclosed to the Australian government. He had also commented on the Facebook posts of Israeli politicians. The officer argued that it was not uncommon for people to interact with politicians of other countries on social media, and was unaware that he had any obligations to report his Facebook page administrator status.
The tribunal said that the material demonstrated that the officer had a lack of insight into his security clearance obligations and had poor security practices and compliance. He was described by the tribunal as having “a degree of naivete” and “a somewhat cavalier approach” to his obligations.
“We are satisfied that, should the Applicant hold a security clearance, the risk to security in respect of ‘acts of foreign interference’ and espionage, albeit no more than a possibility, is squarely raised by the materials we have examined,” concluded the tribunal. “It is a possibility we are satisfied is real and not so remote it should be discounted.”
!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)
{if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};
if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;
n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,’script’,
‘https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’);
fbq(‘init’, ‘1730128020581377’);
fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’);
