Gazans Are Protesting Hamas. Why Isn't It Headline News?

For months, much of the Western media has portrayed Gazans as a people united behind Hamas in their struggle against Israel.

But reality is far more complicated.

In recent weeks, brave Palestinians have taken to the streets of Gaza to protest against Hamas—the very organisation that has ruled the territory with an iron fist since 2007. These demonstrations are extraordinary. In a dictatorship where dissent can lead to imprisonment, torture or death, simply chanting against Hamas is an act of remarkable courage. (HonestReporting)

So why haven't these protests dominated the headlines?

If thousands of Gazans were demonstrating against Israel, it would almost certainly be front-page news. Yet protests against Hamas have received only limited coverage in much of the mainstream media. HonestReporting argues that this silence deprives audiences of a crucial part of the story: many ordinary Gazans are not only victims of war, but also victims of Hamas' rule. (HonestReporting)

Journalism should report facts, even when they complicate a familiar narrative. Ignoring evidence that many Gazans reject Hamas does a disservice to readers—and, more importantly, to the courageous Palestinians risking everything to make their voices heard.

Perhaps it's time the media started listening.

https://honestreporting.com/%E2%96%B6-gazas-anti-hamas-protests-deserve-coverage/

Weekly Roundup - Top Articles and Commentary from Week 28 of 2026

  

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.

• Fire The Liar
• EVs:Green Dream or Environmental Mirage?
• The Net Zero Cost Clock: Counting The Bill
• Without Hezbollah’s Disamament There Is No Peace
• Gazans Are Protesting Hamas. Why Isn't It Headline News? 

Cartoon of the Day

We welcome all feedback; please feel free to submit your comments or contact me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or on X at @grappysb

Without Hezbollah’s disarmament there is no peace

Just days after the United States announced its Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Iran, another diplomatic initiative has emerged—this time a framework agreement between Israel and Lebanon. At first glance, both developments appear to signal progress towards peace. The real question is whether either agreement will actually change anything on the ground.

A recent article by Khaled Abu Toameh at the Gatestone Institute argues that the Lebanon framework is only likely to succeed if one fundamental condition is met: Hezbollah must be disarmed. Without that, any agreement risks becoming little more than another piece of paper.

That is easier said than done.

Hezbollah has already rejected the agreement outright, describing it as illegitimate and insisting that it will continue to operate as an armed “resistance” movement. Its leaders have made it clear they have no intention of surrendering their weapons, despite years of UN resolutions demanding exactly that. (New York Post⁠)

The new framework reportedly envisages the Lebanese Armed Forces gradually taking control of southern Lebanon while Hezbollah is dismantled and disarmed, allowing Israel eventually to withdraw from occupied security zones. Israel has welcomed the agreement as an opportunity to weaken Iran’s influence and restore Lebanese sovereignty. (New York Post⁠)

The problem is that Lebanon has been here before.

For decades the Lebanese government has officially claimed sovereignty over the whole country, yet Hezbollah has continued to operate as a heavily armed state within a state. Numerous ceasefires, UN resolutions and diplomatic agreements have all promised that Hezbollah would be disarmed. None has achieved that objective.

If the Lebanese government cannot—or will not—enforce its own authority, then the framework risks joining a long list of well-intentioned agreements that ultimately changed very little.

Then there is the central role of Iran. Hezbollah is not simply a Lebanese political party; it is Iran’s most important regional proxy. As long as Tehran continues to finance, arm and direct Hezbollah, genuine Lebanese sovereignty remains difficult to achieve.

That raises an obvious question about the earlier U.S.–Iran Memorandum of Understanding. If Iran has not abandoned its regional ambitions, and Hezbollah refuses to disarm, then what practical value does the MOU really have?

Diplomatic agreements are easy to sign.

Enforcing them against determined armed organisations backed by foreign powers is something entirely different.

History suggests that peace is achieved not by signatures on documents but by changing realities on the ground. Until Hezbollah no longer possesses an independent military capability, Israel is unlikely to believe its northern border is secure, and many Lebanese citizens will continue to live under the shadow of a force that answers ultimately to Tehran rather than Beirut.

The framework agreement is therefore a welcome aspiration. Whether it becomes a genuine peace agreement or simply another chapter in the long history of failed Middle East diplomacy will depend almost entirely on whether Hezbollah is actually disarmed.

That is the test.

For a more detailed analysis, I recommend reading Khaled Abu Toameh’s original article at the Gatestone Institute.

Weekly Roundup - Top Articles and Commentary from Week 27 of 2026

  

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.

• Fire The Liar
• EVs:Green Dream or Environmental Mirage?
• The Net Zero Cost Clock: Counting The Bill
• "Fit In or F*ck Off" another poignant (AI generated?) song. Well worth a listen
• Without Hezbollah’s Disamament There Is No Peace
  
  
  

Cartoon of the Day

We welcome all feedback; please feel free to submit your comments or contact me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or on X at @grappysb

The Net Zero Cost Clock: Counting the Bill

 For years Australians have been told that the transition to Net Zero would be "cheap", "necessary", or even that it would save us money.

Yet there has been remarkably little discussion about what it is actually costing taxpayers today.

To help put those costs into perspective I have created the Net Zero Cost Clock, a live counter that continuously estimates the taxpayer-funded subsidies being paid under Australia's Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET).

Unlike government reports released months or years after the money has been spent, the clock keeps running every second of every day.

You can view it here:

https://www.grappyssoapbox.com/p/cost-of-net-zero.html

What does the clock measure?

The clock measures the estimated value of the Large-scale Generation Certificates (LGCs) created under Australia's Renewable Energy Target.

Every megawatt-hour of eligible renewable electricity generates one certificate.

Electricity retailers are required by law to purchase these certificates to meet the Renewable Energy Target. The cost is ultimately passed on to electricity consumers through their power bills.

The calculation is deliberately simple and transparent.

It uses:

• the legislated Renewable Energy Target of approximately 33 million MWh per year

• the current market price of Large-scale Generation Certificates

• a continuously updating calculation that converts the annual subsidy into a live running total.

Every assumption is shown on the page, together with links to the official data sources, allowing readers to verify the calculation themselves.

Why this is only the lower limit

The important point is this:

The clock does not measure the total cost of Net Zero.

It measures just one component of the total cost.

Many of the largest expenses are completely excluded.

These include:

• construction of thousands of kilometres of new high-voltage transmission lines

• major upgrades to local distribution networks

• Renewable Energy Zones

• large-scale battery storage

• Snowy 2.0 and other system support projects

• government grants, concessional loans and underwriting schemes

• curtailed renewable generation

• backup generation required during periods of low wind and solar output

• higher system operating costs required to maintain grid stability.

The elephant not included: rewiring Australia

Perhaps the largest omission is the enormous investment needed simply to connect renewable generation to the electricity grid.

Unlike coal-fired power stations, which are generally located close to existing transmission infrastructure, wind and solar farms are often built hundreds of kilometres from where electricity is actually consumed.

That means Australia must build thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines.

Infrastructure Australia notes that the National Electricity Market will require around 6,000 km of new transmission lines by 2050, while Western Australia will require thousands more.

Industry estimates associated with AEMO's Integrated System Plan suggest around $122 billion of investment in generation, storage and transmission, including approximately $16 billion for major transmission projects alone.

Even these figures are moving targets.

Several major transmission projects have experienced substantial cost increases, with some estimates rising by more than 50 per cent in a single year and individual projects now costing several billions of dollars each.

Whether these investments ultimately prove worthwhile is a matter for public debate.

What is beyond dispute is that they represent costs that are not included in the Net Zero Cost Clock.

Transparency matters

Australians deserve to know not only the environmental objectives of public policy, but also its financial cost.

If governments believe Net Zero represents value for money, then they should have no objection to those costs being measured openly and honestly.

The Net Zero Cost Clock is not intended to settle the policy debate.

It simply makes one part of that debate visible.

In reality, it is best viewed as the minimum entry price of Australia's Net Zero transition.

The real bill is certainly much larger.

Bookmark the Net Zero Cost Clock and check back from time to time. The number only moves in one direction.