The escalating conflict in Gaza and the international outcry gets louder
The need for international leaders to learn from history, use diplomacy effectively, and prioritise a just resolution is paramount.
The conflict in Gaza continues with devastating consequences, with the Israeli military intensifying its bombing campaign, resulting in a rising death toll among civilians—over 13,000, which includes over 5,000 children and over 3,500 women—and the forced displacement of 1.7 million Palestinians from their homes. International pressure on the Israeli government to halt its military actions and seek a resolution has grown, to what is now being referred to as the “second Nakba”.
“Nakba” refers to the catastrophic events of 1948 when 700,000 Palestinians were violently expelled from Palestine, marking a major historical turning point in the Middle East region, while it could be argued that the continuous displacement and ethnic cleansing endured by Palestinians over the past 75 years constitutes an ongoing Nakba, an unsettling reality that has never truly ceased. The public’s increasing awareness of the situation in Gaza and a better understanding of the historical context has fueled global public outrage—if not by governments—against the Netanyahu government and the actions of the Israeli military.
Despite growing international calls for a ceasefire, closer to home, the Australian government remains steadfast in its support for Israel’s “right to defend itself”, refusing to advocate for a cessation of hostilities. The parliamentary debate on the matter reached a boiling point, featuring a confrontational exchange between the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
Dutton, who seems more intent on scoring political points than expressing genuine concern, invoked historical parallels between the current situation in Gaza and the horrors witnessed during the Second World War and urged the Prime Minister to stand united with the Jewish community—even though this is exactly what Albanese had done—accusing him of a lack of solidarity and a divisive approach. Albanese, on the other hand, accused Dutton of overreach, condemning his attempts to weaponise anti-Semitism for political gain. This clash in Parliament reflects a broader polarisation, with political leaders grappling with the challenge of fostering unity in the face of deep social divisions, especially when the conservative side of politics insists on politicising the events in Gaza for its own political benefit.
This division in Australian politics is exemplified by Dutton’s attempts to exploit fears and inflame tensions for advantage. The issue at hand, which essentially is to stop the loss of innocent lives in the first instance and push back the Israel military, is further complicated by the spread of misinformation. Reports, such as the debunked claim of a list of Palestinian operatives found in a Gazan hospital basement—which turned out to be a wall calendar—contribute to the complexity of discerning truth in the midst of conflict.
Both sides of the conflict—the Israel government and Hamas—find themselves lacking in widespread popular support: the Likud Party in Israel is deeply unpopular, as is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and average polls during 2022 and 2023 show political support for Hamas at just 34 per cent. The nature of war, with its array of unverified claims and the unfortunate toll on non-combatants, underscores the urgency for a ceasefire. However, the international response, including the abstention of countries such as Australia and Canada in crucial votes at the United Nations, remains a point of contention.
The Australian Jewish Association’s criticism of Penny Wong, accusing her of ‘heading in a worrying direction’ after she offered a small slither of support for Palestine, shows how difficult any meaningful discussion on a resolution in this crisis is, whether it’s in an international forum, or for a domestic audience.
Dutton’s approach has lacked subtlety and nuance, reflecting a concerning lack of depth in addressing the complex issues of the conflict. But this is Dutton at his worst: failing to avoid division, fear and loathing, because he knows no other way.
Dutton’s divisiveness on Israel–Palestine
The domestic situation is becoming increasingly precarious, as tensions spill over into acts of violence and clashes between supporters of Israel and those standing in solidarity with Palestine. The recent firebombing of Burgertory, a burger shop owned by a pro-Palestinian advocate in the Melbourne suburb of Caulfield by purported supporters of Israel adds a dangerous dimension to the conflict. Although authorities denied political motivations—possibly to alleviate an already tense situation—there is a palpable risk of further escalation within the community.
In response to the attack, supporters of the Palestinian business organised a rally in Caulfield, unknowingly near a synagogue. Accusations of attempting to cause trouble arose, reflecting the heightened sensitivity surrounding the issue. Meanwhile, there have been calls from conservative members of the Jewish community to “prevent” Palestinians from entering Caulfield—as if to import the Israel brand of apartheid into Australia against people they do not like—indicating a disturbing level of polarisation within the community.
The incidents in Caulfield underscore the importance of political leaders treading carefully on international issues to prevent the exacerbation of tensions at a local level. Dutton’s approach, geared towards inflaming divisions, aligns with his track record of utilising populist rhetoric on a wide range of issues: walking out during the Apology to the Stolen Generations in 2008; the “African gangs” rhetoric during 2018 and claiming the community was too scared to go out to restaurant in Melbourne; his concerns about non-white immigration and exploitation of terrorism issues.
This tendency to exploit divisive topics contrasts sharply with the need for subtlety and nuanced thought and, as the French politician Georges Clemenceau suggested, it’s far easier to make war than peace, and the responsibility of a wise politician lies in fostering peace rather than perpetuating discord. Dutton’s inclination towards trouble and division in domestic matters is evident across various contexts, and it raises questions about his suitability to navigate complex issues diplomatically.
The ongoing protests further highlight the stark contrast between the peaceful expressions of both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian sentiments. Demonstrations in Hyde Park, with thousands in attendance, demonstrated passionate but non-violent protests. While there have been instances of arrests, they have been minimal and related to minor infractions rather than serious offenses.
The importance of allowing peaceful protests, even on highly contentious issues, cannot be overstated. However, it necessitates responsibility from both organisers and participants to avoid exacerbating tensions. Dutton’s failure to comprehend the distinction between disruptive yet peaceful protests and violent demonstrations further underscores the challenges in his approach.
In the midst of heightened emotions and deep-seated divisions, the call for political leaders to act responsibly and promote unity becomes more urgent than ever. The potential consequences of mishandling domestic tensions are immense, and the role of leaders in diffusing rather than escalating conflicts cannot be overstated.
Dr. Francesca Albanese’s bold warning on Israel–Gaza
During the week, Dr. Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied territories of Gaza and West Bank, visited Australia and addressed the National Press Club in Canberra.
In a series of exchanges with journalists from the mainstream media, Dr. Albanese unflinchingly addressed the severity of the crisis, going so far as to warn of the risk of genocide by Israel. Her responses challenged attempts to downplay the impact on civilians, emphasising the need for a nuanced understanding of the conflict. The exchanges also revealed the challenges faced by experts attempting to communicate the gravity of the situation amid differing interpretations.
The questions posed by journalists were poor and uninformed, chose the side of the Israel government, and deliberately misrepresented what she had actually said. The following exchanges are a sample, but a clear representation of the paucity of intellect that inflicts many journalists within the mainstream media, who mislead, misinform and search for the prize of “clickbait journalism”, rather than informing the public:
Dr. Francesca Albanese: “There is a risk of genocide being committed by Israel, and also the capacity to do that…”
Tom Connell (Sky News): “if it wanted to, probably would have done, to be blunt about it—yes, it’s a dire situation with civilians, but Israel did say civilians, ‘please leave, this is where we’re targeting’. So that wasn’t them actually targeting civilians at that point.”
Dr. Albanese: “…I don’t mean to be rude. But can you really keep a straight face as you asked me this question?”
Matthew Knott (Nine Media): “You’ve said previously, that it should ultimately be up to Palestinians to decide who governs in Gaza, and that Israel should be open to making a peace deal with Hamas. Given that Hamas leaders since October 7, have said repeatedly that they would like to repeat these attacks, is that really possible? Is Hamas really a potential partner for peace? Or would the defeat or surrender of Hamas be part of any realistic peace agreement in Gaza?”
Dr. Albanese: “Sorry, I cannot answer the question, because you are basically basing yourself on something that has been reported, that it has been completely distorted… you have some media who’s really as manipulative as those in Italy! I said something else, that the military response cannot be war—must be peace, and the peace must be done with the Palestinians. I’m also speaking of a non-legal peace, at peace, reconciliation with the idea that Palestinians have same humanity and same entitlement to rights, freedom and dignity as the Israelis. I’m sorry, but this [what you’ve suggested] is not what I said—that has been completely distorted.”
And the procession of gormless and uninformed journalists continued, only too happy to show their disregard for facts and information and, seemingly, to display their ignorance to a national audience. Dr. Albanese staunchly defended her choice of language, framing it within the context of international law and the existence of an apartheid regime, challenging journalists to refer to the apartheid convention for clarity.
Notably, Dr. Albanese’s expertise and assertiveness provided a powerful counterpoint to the political dynamics at play. Her statements, delivered with conviction, resonated beyond the National Press Club, prompting reflection on the international stage.
However, as the discourse shifts from international perspectives to domestic considerations, the connection between Australia and Israel’s military industries also needs to be considered. The potential use of Australian-made military hardware in the conflict raises ethical questions about Australia’s role in supplying weaponry to a conflict zone. Have any Palestinian civilians been killed with Australian-supplied military hardware? It’s likely. The lack of transparency around military exports to Israel, coupled with the substantial value of such exports, adds a layer of complexity to Australia’s stance on the conflict.
The financial interests at play, evident in the significant military export licenses granted to Israel—52 so far during 2023, and over 350 since 2017—offer a potential explanation for the Australian government’s unwavering support for Israel’s “right to defend itself”. The connection between political decisions and economic interests underscores the need for transparency in international relations, particularly when it comes to matters of conflict and human rights.
As the Israel–Gaza conflict continues to unfold, the dichotomy between international perspectives represented by figures like Dr. Francesca Albanese and domestic political considerations, influenced by economic interests, raises critical questions about Australia’s role in the broader geopolitical landscape. The call for transparency in military exports and a reassessment of political stances in light of evolving circumstances becomes imperative in navigating the delicate balance between global ethics and national interests.
A diplomatic paradigm shift and more international accountability
In the context of the Israel–Gaza conflict, there is a critical need for a shift in approach in the management of international affairs. The reflexive use of claims of “anti-Semitism” to deflect criticism of the Israeli government, Benjamin Netanyahu, or the Israel military is not only counterproductive but may be working against the long-term interests of Israel itself. The international community must move beyond merely urging restraint and exert more substantial pressure on the state of Israel to bring about a resolution in Gaza: simply reiterating that Israel has a right to defend itself is simply avoiding the issue and won’t result in any meaningful resolution.
Repeated calls for a resolution in the past month underscore the urgency of the situation. The international community’s inability to resolve the Israel–Palestine conflict was compared with US President Jimmy Carter’s tenure in the late 1970s, standing out as a rare instance of significant progress. Carter’s tough approach, contrary to his public persona, demonstrated that Israeli leaders respond to firmness. The subsequent decades, marked by a lack of assertive international intervention, have contributed to the current impasse.
It is a sobering reminder that when political leaders are allowed unchecked power, they will act in their self-interest: history has confirm this basic fact. For Israel, this underscores the need for a change in approach within its political leadership. The international community must not shy away from demanding accountability and promoting a resolution that respects the rights and dignity of all involved.
President Carter’s success in negotiating peace in the Middle East, resulting in the Camp David Accords, stands as a testament to the potential impact of resolute leadership. In a complex geopolitical landscape, it is essential to recognise that firmness, not complacency, is required to address deeply entrenched conflicts.
Noam Chomsky’s characterisation of Israeli governments as “spoiled children” demanding their own way—a comment repeated by the President of Turkiye, Recep Tayyip Erdogan in 2011—aligns with the need for a recalibration of diplomatic strategies. The current desperation and internal challenges faced by Netanyahu further complicate the situation. As he confronts serious corruption charges and waning public support, his actions in the international arena become increasingly unpredictable and it’s always best to treat a desperate political leader firmly.
In essence, the Israel–Gaza conflict reflects broader geopolitical challenges that demand thoughtful, assertive diplomacy. It requires a departure from conventional approaches and a commitment to addressing the root causes of the conflict. International pressure must be wielded judiciously, focusing on fostering a just resolution that considers the rights, security, and dignity of all parties involved.
As the situation continues to evolve, the world watches with a high level of concern, acknowledging the delicate balance required to navigate the complexities of the Israel–Gaza conflict. The need for international leaders to learn from history, leverage diplomatic tools effectively, and prioritise a just and lasting resolution remains paramount.