Unpacking the Controversies in General Gonfa’s Narrative
Feature Commentary: Unpacking the Narrative – A Rebuttal to General Hailu Gonfa’s ETV Interview
By Daandii Ragabaa
February 1, 2026
A recent interview given by General Hailu Gonfa, a former high-ranking member of the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA), to Ethiopian state television (ETV) has sent ripples through political and activist circles. Presented as a “tell-all,” the interview was a stark narrative of disillusionment with the OLF/OLA, peppered with allegations of foreign manipulation and internal failure. For the state broadcaster, it was a coup—a former insurgent commander validating state narratives. For many observers, however, it was a performance laden with contradictions and historical revisionism that demands scrutiny, not passive acceptance.
General Gonfa’s core thesis is one of victimhood at the hands of the Eritrean government (Shaebia) and strategic confusion within the OLF/OLA. He paints a picture of being used, misled, and ultimately betrayed. Yet, a closer examination of his own points reveals a narrative more complex and less absolving of his own agency.
1. The Eritrea Conundrum: Pawns or Strategic Partners?
Gonfa claims they went to Eritrea not out of hatred for Ethiopia, but to oppose the system, following the path of Eritreans themselves. He then details a three-month military training at Camp Ashfaray, a period of intense hardship. The critical question he sidesteps is: what did he and his comrades believe they were building towards in Asmara? Did they receive a political program from the OLF leadership? As senior military cadres, did they simply execute orders without understanding the overarching political strategy? His portrayal reduces seasoned officers to naive children, which insults both their intelligence and the gravity of their decision to seek foreign military training.
2. The Phantom “Russian Assignment” and Internal Discord.
He recounts a meeting in Russia where OLF members approached him, but they could not agree on a common agenda for working inside Ethiopia. He claims he was later given a vague, “impossible” national assignment. This raises a fundamental question: if there was such profound disagreement on core strategy before undertaking major actions, why proceed? The attempt to blame subsequent failures on a pre-existing lack of consensus suggests a failure of leadership and collective decision-making, not merely the deceit of others.
3. The “Oromia Republic” Straw Man.
This is perhaps the most disingenuous claim. Gonfa asserts a foundational disagreement over the goal of an “Oromia Republic,” which he labels a “colonial agenda.” He claims this deadlock was irreconcilable. Yet, the public record shows that figures like General Kamal Galchu, in a VOA interview, spoke openly about the possibility of a republic after achieving liberation. Furthermore, the OLF’s own political programs have historically navigated the spectrum between self-determination and possible independence based on a popular referendum. To frame a central, debated political aspiration as a shocking, divisive “colonial” plot is a gross misrepresentation of the struggle’s own intellectual history, likely tailored for his current audience in Addis Ababa.
4, 5 & 7: The Shaebia Scapegoat and the Mystery of Betrayal.
Gonfa dedicates significant time to blaming Eritrea for their imprisonment and manipulating the OLA’s military wing. He describes a mysterious Colonel “Xamee” who allegedly controlled them. This narrative of total Eritrean control sits awkwardly with his other claims of internal OLA agency, such as the alleged refusal of some army units to follow orders in 2018. If the OLA was merely a puppet, how did it exercise such defiance? His testimony about Colonel Abebe (allegedly now a Brigadier General in the OLA) is particularly damaging but presented without context or corroboration. It creates a convenient fog where all failures can be attributed to a shadowy foreign hand, absolving internal leadership of critical misjudgments.
6. The Uncomfortable Transition from Refugee to Parliamentarian.
Gonfa’s personal journey—from an economic refugee with a Swedish passport to a member of parliament—is presented as a triumph of resilience. Yet, it unavoidably invites questions about the pathway from armed opposition to state legitimization. He speaks of the hardships of struggle, but for many watching, the stark contrast between the described suffering and his current official position underscores the complex, often ambiguous, transitions in Ethiopian political life, where former enemies can become state stakeholders.
8 & 9: Rewriting the Homecoming and the Gadaa Model.
He claims that upon returning to Ethiopia, they chose to work on national issues within the political system, respecting the existing OLF leadership. This sanitizes what many saw as a major split and a demobilization. His praise for the “Gadaa model” of conflict resolution, now being adopted in Amhara region, rings hollow. It appears less as a genuine endorsement of traditional systems and more as an endorsement of the federal government’s current policy of co-opting ethnic administrative models, a far cry from the Gadaa system’s principles of sovereignty and self-rule.
Conclusion: A Performance with a Purpose
General Hailu Gonfa’s interview is less a revelation and more a strategic repositioning. It is an effort to construct a personal and political narrative that reconciles a past of armed rebellion with a present of state accommodation. In doing so, it simplifies a multifaceted struggle into a story of foreign deception and internal error, draining it of its political substance and reducing it to a series of personal grievances and bad partnerships.
For the state, it is a useful narrative: the rebels were confused, controlled by Eritrea, and have now seen the light. For the still-active struggle, it is a warning about the power of state platforms to reshape history. For critical observers, it is a reminder that every testimony, especially those given in such loaded circumstances, must be read not just for what is said, but for the silences it cultivates and the interests it serves. The truth of the Oromo struggle, in all its sacrifice, complexity, and ongoing evolution, lies not in this single curated confession, but in the totality of its lived history, which is far messier, more principled, and more enduring than this interview suggests.
The Gedeo Daraaro Festival: A Celebration of Renewal and Justice
“Daraaro”: The Gedeo Festival of Renewal and its Modern Resonance
In the heart of Ethiopia’s capital, a celebration of profound cultural and spiritual significance is unfolding. The Gedeo people’s “Daraaro” festival—the annual marker of their transition from the old year to the new—is being observed in Addis Ababa with a solemnity and vibrancy that speaks to both its deep roots and its contemporary relevance.
Described as a festival of “gift, gratitude, and peace,” Daraaro is far more than a calendrical event. It is a living embodiment of a worldview. At its core, it is an act of communal reorientation: a time to present gifts (sita) to spiritual leaders (Abba Gada), expressing thanks for peace and success granted, and articulating collective hopes for health, security, and a bountiful harvest in the year ahead. This intertwining of the spiritual, the social, and the agricultural reveals a holistic philosophy where human well-being is inseparable from divine favor and environmental harmony.
What makes the current observance in Addis Ababa particularly noteworthy is its dual character. It is simultaneously an act of cultural preservation and a statement of modern identity. The inclusion of symposia and events detailing Gedeo history, culture, and language transforms the celebration into a platform for education and dialogue. It asserts that Gedeo heritage is not a relic of the past, but a vital, intellectual, and artistic tradition deserving of national recognition and understanding.
The festival’s official framing around the theme of “development for culture and tourism” is a significant and complex evolution. On one hand, it represents a strategic move to gain visibility and economic leverage within the Ethiopian state, which actively promotes cultural tourism. On the other, it risks commodifying a sacred tradition. The true test will be whether this external framing can remain a vessel for the festival’s intrinsic meanings of gratitude, peace, and social justice, rather than subsuming them.
Indeed, the commentary’s note that issues of “justice and the national system” are part of the discourse during Daraaro is crucial. For the Gedeo—a people with a distinct identity and a history intertwined with questions of land, resource rights, and administrative recognition—a festival of renewal is inevitably also a moment to reflect on societal structures. Prayers for a good harvest and communal safety are, in the modern context, also implicit commentaries on land tenure, economic equity, and political inclusion.
The most forward-looking aspect of the report is the work towards UNESCO recognition as intangible cultural heritage. This pursuit is a high-stakes endeavor. Success would provide a global shield for the festival, fostering preservation, research, and prestige. However, it must be navigated carefully to avoid fossilizing the tradition or divorcing it from the community that gives it life.
A Commentary: The Bridge of Daraaro
Daraaro, in its essence, builds a bridge. It bridges the old year and the new, the human and the divine, the individual and the community. Now, as celebrated in Addis Ababa, it builds another: a bridge between the particularity of Gedeo culture and the broader Ethiopian—and indeed global—conversation.
Its message of gratitude and peace is a universal one, yet it is delivered in the specific, potent vocabulary of Gedeo tradition. Its emphasis on social justice ties an ancient ritual to the most pressing contemporary debates. Its pursuit of UNESCO status places a local Ethiopian practice within an international framework of cultural value.
The celebration of Daraaro in the capital is thus a powerful symbol. It signifies that Ethiopia’s strength does not lie in a monolithic culture, but in the ability of its diverse nations and peoples to bring their unique, rich, and reflective traditions to the national table. It reminds us that a “new year” is not just a change of date, but an opportunity for societal recalibration—a time to offer gratitude, seek justice, and plant collective hopes for the future. In honoring Daraaro, we are reminded that some of the most vital frameworks for building a peaceful and prosperous society are not new political doctrines, but ancient festivals of renewal, patiently observed year after year.
US-Ethiopia Accord: Unpacking the Anti-Terror Strategy
A Strategic Embrace: Reading Between the Lines of the US-Ethiopia “Anti-Terror” Accord
By Maatii Sabaa
This week, the corridors of power in Addis Ababa hosted a meeting that was, on the surface, all about forward momentum. Ethiopian Defense Minister Engineer Aisha Mohammed received United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM) Commander General Dagvin Anderson, and the subsequent joint statement was a masterclass in diplomatic phraseology. The two nations, we are told, agreed to elevate their “growing diplomatic and military relations into a higher strategic partnership,” reaffirmed a shared commitment to “peace and security,” and—most pointedly—pledged to “jointly combat terrorism to safeguard their respective national interests.”
The language is smooth, strategic, and designed for international news wires. Yet, in the complex geopolitical theater of the Horn of Africa, such declarations are never just ink on paper. They are seismic signals, revealing shifting tectonic plates of influence, ambition, and realpolitik. To understand this meeting, one must read not just the statement, but the subtext, the timing, and the unspoken needs of both parties.
For the United States, represented by the commander of its African military umbrella, the engagement is a calibrated re-engagement. Ethiopia, long a cornerstone of US strategy in the region, experienced a profound rupture in relations following the Tigray War. The meeting signals a deliberate American pivot: from a posture of pressure and sanctions to one of renewed partnership, albeit with a clear, security-first agenda. The framing of “combating terrorism” provides a mutually acceptable chassis for this rebuilt relationship. It allows the US to re-establish critical military-to-military ties, secure influence in a strategically vital nation bordering volatile regions, and counter the deepening foothold of rivals like Russia and China. General Anderson’s presence at the 90th anniversary of the Ethiopian Air Force was not merely ceremonial; it was a symbolic reinvestment in a key institutional partner.
For the Ethiopian government of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, the benefits are equally compelling, but stem from a position of seeking consolidation. Emerging from a devastating internal conflict and facing persistent security challenges—from insurgent groups in Oromia to tensions with neighboring Somalia—Addis Ababa craves international legitimacy and material support. A publicized strategic partnership with the world’s preeminent military power serves both ends. It burnishes the government’s diplomatic standing, frames its internal conflicts through the lens of a global “war on terror,” and potentially unlocks access to security assistance, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic cover. The phrase “safeguard their respective national interests” is crucial here; it acknowledges Ethiopia’s sovereign prerogative to define its threats, while America gains a partner in regional stability.
However, the term “terrorism” in this context is a Pandora’s Box. Who defines it? Which groups fall under this banner? The agreement risks providing international sanction for the domestic suppression of political dissent or armed resistance movements, branding them as terrorists in the name of shared security. This has profound implications for human rights and political negotiation within Ethiopia. Critics will argue that such pacts can embolden securitized approaches to complex political problems, prioritizing military solutions over dialogue and reconciliation.
Ultimately, the Addis Ababa meeting is a transaction. The United States gains a relaunched strategic foothold. Ethiopia gains validation and support. The glue binding the deal is a shared, if vaguely defined, enemy: “terrorism.” While the language speaks of peace and partnership, the underlying calculus is one of hard-nosed interest. The test of this new chapter will not be in the warmth of high-level meetings, but in the concrete actions that follow. Will it lead to greater stability and rights-respecting security in Ethiopia, or will it simply militarize a troubled landscape under a new banner of cooperation? The joint statement opens a door; what walks through it will define the true meaning of this strategic embrace.
Colonel Gammachuu: The Unyielding Truth Teller of Oromia
Title: The Unbent Reed: A Commentary on Colonel Gammachuu Ayyaanaa and the Cost of Truth
By Maatii Sabaa
In the suffocating political atmosphere of empires, where silence is often traded for security and allegiances are bartered for comfort, a singular figure stands apart not for the power he wields, but for the truth he refuses to relinquish. Colonel Gammachuu Ayyaanaa, as profiled in a recent and fervent tribute, is presented not merely as a man, but as a phenomenon—an unbent reed in a storm of compromise. He embodies a rare and dangerous archetype: the native son who, understanding the inner workings of the Ethiopian imperial system, chooses not to dine at its table but to speak its crimes aloud.
The commentary paints him with the brush of absolute conviction. He is a man who “knows no malice” and “speaks no falsehood.” This is his foundational identity. In a landscape riddled with coded language and strategic ambiguity, his clarity is itself a revolution. He does not speak truth as a strategy for a better personal life; indeed, his truth-telling guarantees the opposite. As the piece starkly notes, he has “no private life,” existing instead in a state of “lowly livelihood.” The trade-off is explicit: his comfort for his people’s cause. What worries him is not personal hardship, but the “encroachment on the rights of the Oromo people and the violation of Oromia’s borders.”
This is where Gammachuu transcends the typical political or military figure. He is portrayed not as a commander giving orders from a safe remove, but as a “dhaabee”—one who is stationed, rooted, and bearing the brunt. He stands not on a podium, but in the line of fire. His advocacy is particular and painful, giving voice to the displaced communities of Tulama Oromos, whose land and heritage have been erased by force. He channels their specific grief into a universal indictment.
The tribute makes a searing observation about the Oromo community itself, suggesting a troubling tendency to withhold honor from those who most deserve it. It frames Gammachuu as a man whose primary, overriding identity is Oromummaa—Oromo nationhood—which supersedes all clan, regional, or religious affiliations. This unitary focus makes him a stark anomaly in a system, and a society, often fractured by internal divisions the empire readily exploits.
His fearlessness is not born of ignorance, but of profound understanding. Having “analyzed the politics of the Ethiopian Empire,” he comprehends the full weight of its machinery. Yet, this knowledge does not paralyze him with caution; it liberates him with purpose. The system, the commentary asserts, has already declared its verdict on such men, whether they are called “scholars” or “heroes.” In the face of this, Gammachuu speaks with “no fear,” save the fear of failing his unwavering commitment.
The final exhortation—”Nama kana Kunuunsadhu Oromoo!” (Oromo people, support this man!)—is the crucial pivot from admiration to action. It recognizes that such singular courage is not a self-sustaining artifact. It is a flame that must be shielded by the collective will of the people it seeks to illuminate. Colonel Gammachuu Ayyaanaa, as presented, is the unwavering voice. The question implicit in the commentary is whether the people for whom he speaks will become the unshakeable chorus, ensuring that the cost of truth is borne not by one man alone, but shared by a nation determined to hear it. In an age of calculated silence, his story is a piercing reminder that the most potent form of resistance is a life lived in uncompromising alignment with truth, regardless of the price.
Australia’s Crackdown on Migrant Exploitation
EXCLUSIVE
MAJOR BORDER FORCE OPERATION NETS FOUR IN FAR NORTH QUEENSLAND CRACKDOWN ON MIGRANT EXPLOITATION SYNDICATES
CAIRNS, QLD – Australian Border Force (ABF) officers have launched a major offensive against criminal networks profiting from the illegal exploitation of migrant workers, detaining four high-priority targets in Far North Queensland in a sweeping operation.
The Department of Home Affairs-led operation, which targeted immigration non-compliance, visa fraud, and labour trafficking, marks a significant escalation in efforts to dismantle sophisticated syndicates preying on vulnerable workers and undermining the integrity of Australia’s migration system.
“This operation sends a strong message that Australia will not tolerate the abuse of our visa system or the exploitation of people who come here to work,” a senior ABF official stated. “Regional communities do not want this criminal behaviour in their backyard, and we are acting decisively to disrupt it.”
The Detained:
According to ABF sources, those apprehended include:
- A suspected fraudulent migration agent and his partner, who allegedly targeted workers from the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme. They are accused of charging exorbitant fees to lodge invalid Protection Visa applications, leaving workers in legal limbo and severe debt.
- An unlawful non-citizen alleged to be a key facilitator, trafficking illegal migrant workers to local businesses while providing unlawful immigration assistance.
- An individual accused of using violence and coercion to control vulnerable migrants, funneling them into illegal work while subjecting them to substandard housing and appalling working conditions.
Cracking Down on “Modern Slavery” in Plain Sight
The operation highlights a growing national focus on what authorities describe as “modern slavery in plain sight” within certain industries. Criminal syndicates are suspected of using complex visa fraud, deceptive recruitment, and intimidation to create a cheap, compliant, and illegal workforce.
The exploitation of PALM scheme workers, a government program designed to support Australia’s agricultural and regional sectors through legal, protected labour, is of particular concern. The alleged actions of the detained migration agent represent a direct attack on a vital bilateral program, jeopardising the welfare of workers and community trust.
Community Vigilance Crucial
Authorities have praised the role of the public and regional communities in reporting suspicious activity, which directly contributed to the intelligence-led operation.
“Members of the public continue to play a critical role,” the ABF emphasised. “Their reports help us build a picture of these exploitative networks and take action.”
The ABF urges anyone with information on visa fraud, illegal work, or worker exploitation to report it anonymously via the Border Watch program online. The public is reminded that illegal workers are often victims themselves, ensnared by deceptive promises and crippling debt.
The four individuals are now in immigration detention pending their removal from Australia. Investigations into the wider networks involved are ongoing, with the ABF warning that further enforcement action is expected.
Burtukan Mideksa’s Journey: A Political Memoir Unveiled
Feature Commentary: “መመለስ” – The Return of a Voice and the Resonance of Memory
In the rich tapestry of Ethiopian political life, few contemporary figures command the blend of unwavering principle and administrative acumen quite like W/ro Burtukan Mideksa. Her journey—from the bench to political leadership, from imprisonment to international diplomacy—has been a defining narrative of Ethiopia’s turbulent recent decades. The recent ceremonial launch of her Amharic-language memoir, “መመለስ: ቦጌ ትውስታዎቼ” (“Return: My Bogé Memories”), is therefore more than a literary event. It is a significant political and cultural moment, a formal re-entry of a pivotal perspective into the nation’s ongoing dialogue about its past and its future.
The title itself, “መመለስ” (Return), is profoundly evocative. On one level, it refers to a physical and spiritual return to Bogé—a place steeped in personal and national history, likely referencing a period of reflection, struggle, or origin. On another, it signifies the return of Burtukan Mideksa’s own voice to the public sphere in a new, enduring form. After years of being analyzed, quoted, and defined by others—as a judge, an opposition leader, a prisoner of conscience, and most recently as the Chairperson of the National Election Board of Ethiopia (NEBE)—this book represents her opportunity to define her own narrative, to “return” the story to its source.
The launch event, as reported, was fittingly dignified, attended by a host of guests and featuring readings by prominent figures like Abba Balcha and Konjit Seyoum. The participation of intellectuals and analysts such as Soliana Shimelis, Worqneh Tefera, Hirut Tefaye, Tewodros Aylaw, and Dawit Birhanu underscores the book’s perceived weight. It is not treated as a mere personal account but as a primary source document, a contribution to the collective understanding of Ethiopia’s political evolution over the last thirty years.
The book’s structure—37 chapters spanning 292 pages—suggests a comprehensive and detailed reckoning. For students of Ethiopian politics, the promise lies in the granular, firsthand account of critical junctures: the fraught 2005 elections, the experience of political imprisonment, the internal dynamics of opposition politics, and the complex challenges of leading an institution like the NEBE in a polarized environment. It offers a rare, insider’s view from a figure who has operated at the highest stakes of the country’s democratic struggle.
However, the publication of “መመለስ” arrives at a deeply complex moment. Ethiopia is a nation still grappling with the wounds of a brutal civil war, severe internal fractures, and an uncertain political transition. In this context, a memoir by a figure of Burtukan’s stature is inevitably a political act. It will be read not just for its recollections, but for its judgments, its silences, and its implicit commentary on present-day actors and crises. It has the potential to reframe debates, validate certain historical narratives, and challenge others.
Ultimately, the significance of “መለሰ” extends beyond its immediate political insights. It represents the power of personal testimony in a national story often dominated by grand ideologies and collective movements. By sharing her “Bogé memories,” Burtukan Mideksa does more than recount events; she invites a conversation about resilience, principle, and the personal cost of public life in Ethiopia. Whether as a tool for historical clarification, a mirror for the present, or a guide for future leaders, this “return” of memory to the public domain is a vital addition to the fragile architecture of Ethiopia’s national understanding. Its true impact will be measured not just in book sales, but in the depth and quality of the dialogue it inspires.
The Truth Behind the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam
Feature Commentary: Untangling the Nile – Correcting the Record on Africa’s Renaissance Dam
In the global discourse surrounding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), facts have often been submerged under waves of political rhetoric and historical bias. A recent intervention by former U.S. President Donald Trump, laden with sweeping inaccuracies, serves as a stark case study in how misinformation can poison complex transboundary issues. By examining his ten central claims, we can separate hydroelectric reality from hydrological fiction and recenter a conversation that is fundamentally about development, sovereignty, and dignity.
The False Financial Ledger
The assertion that “The United States paid for the dam” (Claim No. 1) is not merely incorrect; it is an erasure of a national endeavor. GERD stands as a monument to domestic sacrifice, funded by Ethiopian bonds, civil servant contributions, and public mobilization. This narrative of external funding subtly strips Ethiopia of its agency, reframing a sovereign project as a foreign-sponsored venture. The truth is more powerful: Africa’s largest hydropower plant is being built by Africans, for Africans.
The Hydro-Logic of Power, Not Theft
The core technical misrepresentations reveal a fundamental misunderstanding—or deliberate mischaracterization—of how a dam functions. GERD does not “stop the Nile” (Claim No. 2) nor did Ethiopia ever “cut off Egypt’s water” (Claim No. 3). A run-of-the-river hydropower plant generates electricity from the flow of water, which then continues downstream. It is not a reservoir of contention but a conduit of energy. Repeating the fiction of water theft does not make it fact; it manufactures a crisis where none exists.
The Colonial Claim vs. The Geographic Truth
The most historically loaded falsehood is that “The Nile belongs to Egypt” (Claim No. 4). This claim is a relic of colonial-era agreements from which Ethiopia was excluded. Over 86% of the Nile’s water originates in the Ethiopian highlands. A nation does not seek permission to use a river that springs from its own soil. Sovereignty over natural resources is not granted by historical habit or downstream hegemony.
Sovereignty, Not Permission
This leads directly to the paternalistic fantasy that “someone allowed Ethiopia to build this dam” (Claim No. 6). Ethiopia, a sovereign state, did not request nor require an external permit to develop its infrastructure. To frame GERD’s existence as something that was “allowed” is to deny the very essence of self-determination. Similarly, labeling national development as a “crisis Ethiopia created” (Claim No. 5) inverts the moral framework. The crisis is the persistent expectation that African nations should forgo electrification and growth to preserve an untenable status quo.
Weaponizing Rhetoric vs. Generating Watts
The rhetorical escalation to call GERD “a weapon” (Claim No. 7) or a direct threat to “Egypt’s survival” (Claim No. 8) is dangerous alarmism. The dam is concrete and steel, producing megawatts, not conflict. Egypt’s water security challenges—rooted in population growth and resource management—predate GERD. Blaming an upstream dam is a political diversion from difficult domestic reforms.
The Fallacy of the Outsider Savior & The Apology That Is Not Owed
Finally, the twin falsehoods of a solitary “powerful outsider” capable of solving the dispute (Claim No. 9) and that “Ethiopia must apologize for progress” (Claim No. 10) are two sides of the same coin. They suggest African agency is insufficient and that development is an offense. Sustainable resolution will come from good-faith negotiation among the Nile Basin nations—Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia—not from external diktat. And using one’s own resources to lift millions from energy poverty warrants celebration, not contrition.
The Real Dam Blocking Progress
In the end, GERD is not the problem. Ethiopia’s pursuit of development is not the problem. The problem, as this list of false claims makes abundantly clear, is misinformation. It is the circulation of outdated narratives, the weaponization of technical ignorance, and the refusal to acknowledge a simple truth: that the long-overdue renaissance the dam’s name promises is for Ethiopia, and its light need not dim any other nation’s future. The path forward is lit by facts, not fiction.
Victoria Commemorates National Day of Mourning for Bondi Victims
Feature News: Victoria Joins National Day of Mourning, Illuminating a Path Forward from Bondi Tragedy
MELBOURNE, VIC – Today, Victoria stands in solemn solidarity with the nation, observing a National Day of Mourning to honour the 15 lives lost in the devastating terrorist attack at Bondi Beach’s Jewish community centre on December 14, 2025.
The Victorian Department of Premier and Cabinet has outlined the state’s formal acts of remembrance, framing the day as both a moment for collective grief and a resolute stance against hate. “It is a day for all Australians to come together to grieve, remember, and stand against antisemitism and hate,” the statement read.
Across the state and the country, visual symbols will mark the day’s gravity. Flags will be flown at half-mast at all Commonwealth and Victorian Government buildings—a universal gesture of loss and respect. As dusk falls, the tribute will transform. Major landmark buildings across Victoria’s skyline will be illuminated in white, a deliberate symbol of light, peace, and resilience cutting through the darkness of tragedy. “A symbol of light, as we move forward as a nation,” the government statement noted.
The commemoration will reach its poignant peak at 7:01 PM, the exact time the attack unfolded. Australians are invited nationwide to observe a minute of silence, a shared national pause to remember the 15 innocent victims whose lives and futures were tragically stolen.
The coordinated national response, which includes similar observances from federal and other state authorities, underscores a unified commitment to social cohesion. By designating a National Day of Mourning, officials aim to channel raw community sorrow into a reaffirmation of shared values—condemning antisemitic violence and all forms of bigotry while honoring the victims with dignity.
Today, as buildings glow white and flags hang low, Victoria’s official acts of remembrance serve as a public covenant: to mourn deeply, to remember collectively, and to walk forward together, guided by light.
Strengthening Community Bonds: Social Cohesion Event
Feature News: Southeast Melbourne Councils Launch “Social Cohesion” Workshops, Seek Community Architects
GREATER DANDENONG, VIC – In a proactive move to strengthen the social fabric of one of Australia’s most diverse regions, three neighbouring councils are joining forces to host a unique community workshop. The City of Greater Dandenong, the City of Casey, and the Shire of Cardinia are calling on local residents to help define and build a shared vision for a stronger, fairer future.
The initiative, a facilitated workshop titled “Defining Social Cohesion,” aims to create a safe space for residents to explore what unity, belonging, and mutual respect mean in their rapidly growing communities today.
Turning Shared Visions into Reality
“Every voice matters,” states the joint announcement, framing the workshop as a foundational step in collaborative community planning. The goal is to move beyond abstract ideals and turn collective aspirations into tangible outcomes. The facilitated discussion will focus not only on defining social cohesion but also on the practical role each resident plays in shaping it.
“Together, we can turn our shared visions into reality,” the councils propose, positioning the event as a grassroots opportunity to directly influence the social landscape of Melbourne’s vibrant southeast.
A Call for Diverse Voices
Participation is specifically limited to residents of the southeast Melbourne area, ensuring the conversation is grounded in local experiences and challenges. With limited spots available, organisers are urging interested community members to register early.
Event Details:
- Date: Wednesday, 28 January
- Time: 12:30 PM – 3:30 PM
- Location: Dandenong Civic Centre – Training Rooms 1 and 2
- Registration & Info: Residents are encouraged to register promptly via their local council websites or contact the organising academic partner for questions at tmiletic@unimelb.edu.au.
Building Resilience from the Ground Up
This workshop comes at a time when communities nationwide are reflecting on social harmony and resilience. By facilitating these conversations locally, the councils of Greater Dandenong, Casey, and Cardinia are investing in a community-led model for social planning, recognizing that the strongest cohesion is built from the ground up, one conversation at a time.
The event represents a significant opportunity for residents to become active architects of their community’s future, ensuring the southeast continues to be a place where diversity is not just acknowledged but is the very source of its strength.
A Legacy in Melody – Dirre Dhawaa University to Establish Dr. Alii Birraa Music School
DIRRE DHAWAA, OROMIA – In a move set to transform the cultural and academic landscape of eastern Oromia, Dirre Dhawaa University has announced the foundation of a new institution dedicated to musical excellence: the Dr. Alii Birraa Memorial Music School.
The university made the formal announcement via its official Facebook page, outlining plans to establish the school in the legendary artist’s hometown. This initiative is not just about building a structure, but about rooting a center of artistic excellence in the very soil that inspired one of Ethiopia’s most cherished musical voices.
Bridging Institutions for a Harmonious Future
The project is already hitting the right notes through a powerful collaboration. Experts and lecturers from the renowned Yared Music School at Addis Ababa University are providing crucial initial support. According to the university, these seasoned academics are traveling to Dirre Dhawaa to share their expertise, helping to design curricula and establish foundational frameworks. This knowledge transfer represents a significant vote of confidence and a bridge between the nation’s premier music academy and this promising new venture.
A key driving force behind this collaborative spirit is Dr. Malaaku Yigzaw, Dean of the Yared Music School. The university confirmed that Dr. Malaaku has formally pledged his institution’s full professional support to ensure the successful establishment of the memorial school.
Honoring a Native Son, Investing in a Region’s Soul
The decision to name the school after the late Kabajaa Artist Alii Birraa is deeply symbolic. Born in the Dirre Dhawaa area, Alii Birraa was a monumental figure in Ethiopian music, celebrated for popularizing the Oromo musical tradition of Biftuu and singing powerfully about love, social issues, and identity. Establishing a music school in his name serves a dual purpose: immortalizing his legacy and actively nurturing the next generation of artists from his region.
President of Dirre Dhawaa University, Magarsaa Qaasim (PhD), emphasized this point, highlighting the area’s rich but often under-recognized artistic heritage. “Dirre Dhawaa is a wellspring of many renowned artists,” President Magarsaa noted, underscoring the school’s mission to cultivate this latent talent formally.
A Conductor’s Baton for Regional Development
The university stated that it is undertaking all necessary preparations for the project and has already begun receiving “favorable support” from various organizations. This suggests the project is resonating beyond academic circles, potentially attracting cultural and developmental partners.
The establishment of the Dr. Alii Birraa Memorial Music School is more than an academic expansion. It is an act of cultural preservation, a tribute to a national icon, and a strategic investment in the creative future of eastern Ethiopia. By transforming the memory of a single great artist into a living institution of learning, Dirre Dhawaa University is ensuring that the region’s melodies will not only be remembered but will continue to evolve, inspire, and educate for generations to come.
Oromedia 