Pen Power: grassroots activism or a pro-Israel pressure machine?

An organiser chooses an issue, prepares an argument and circulates a link. Supporters send messages from their own accounts. The software supplier advertises AI that changes the wording while preserving the organiser’s meaning. Pen Power organiser John Grimwade describes the volunteer and WhatsApp network that recruits people into that process.^[1][2][3] A campaign can put one argument into many different verbal forms before it reaches a minister’s inbox.

The agenda is openly political. In his 6 March 2026 account, Grimwade describes challenging anti-Israel narratives, confronting the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement and writing to government departments at all three levels. He places those campaigns alongside action against antisemitism.^[4] Protecting Jewish Australians and defending Israeli policy are different objectives. Government should assess each request by what it asks officials to do.

One campaign, many versions

Grimwade credits Activist Mailer with free American email software, provided, he says, to defend Jewish communities and oppose hate. He also credits like-minded groups in Britain and the United States with assisting the Royal Commission letter campaign.^[4] Free software and an international support network lower the cost of sustained organising. The important questions are who selects the targets, who writes the argument and what terms accompany that assistance.

The supplier’s advertised workflow starts with an organiser’s message framework. AI varies its wording, tone, formatting and length, and the provider presents that variation as a way past mass-email filters. Supporters review the result and send it themselves.^[1][2] Grimwade describes volunteers collecting incidents and recipient addresses, distributing links through WhatsApp and offering a prepared message people can alter. Australian Jewish Association (AJA) chief executive Robert Gregory encourages participation in an interview uploaded on 12 May 2026.^[3]

People are entitled to organise around shared convictions. Templates can help those short of time, confidence or fluent English participate. Their choice to send a message is real.^[3][2] But that choice and the origin of the argument answer different questions. AI can make centrally prepared material look less standardised while leaving its political direction intact.

The risk is that recipients read variation as independence: many formulations appearing to supply many separate reasons for action. The supplier’s description gives government a reason to examine the common campaign behind the messages. A supporter count measures participation. The independence of the arguments and the evidence supplied need their own assessment.^[1][2]

Pressure on government, with results still to prove

In the AJA recording, Grimwade says more than 3,000 emails reached the Prime Minister’s office and other ministers supporting the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. He presents its subsequent announcement as a campaign success.^[3][5] His account shows the ambition of the method: turn a coordinated demand into pressure officials must consider.

The Prime Minister’s account identifies other inputs. On 9 January 2026, Anthony Albanese described listening to grieving families, consulting community members and legal experts, settling a commissioner and terms of reference, and avoiding competing commissions.^[5] Letters may have contributed alongside that work. The weight given to Pen Power’s request requires evidence from the officials who considered it.

Grimwade also credits campaigning with Palestinian DJ Sama’ Abdulhadi’s absence from WOMADelaide. The festival’s notice says she could not travel to Australia in time for her scheduled 2026 appearance, without identifying a campaign or immigration decision.^[3][6] A cultural platform becomes another campaign target; the organiser’s claim of victory still needs a dated request, acknowledged receipt and reasons connecting it to the decision.

These examples distinguish the ability to apply pressure from proof that it changed an outcome. They also show why scrutiny should follow the request through the institution: what did campaigners ask, what evidence did they supply and what did officials decide?

Count supporters, examine the agenda

Government should hear coordinated campaigns and record their source. When different wording carries a common argument, officials should count the participants, identify the shared submission and test its evidence. An allegation of antisemitism requires examination of the conduct alleged; a demand affecting an artist or critic also requires a fair opportunity to respond.

The same safeguards should protect Jewish participants from discriminatory exclusion and critics of Israeli policy from unsupported accusations. Pen Power should disclose the terms of its free service, how its campaign positions are chosen and the records behind its claimed successes. Government owes the public reasons for its decisions that go beyond the volume or apparent variety of the emails it receives.