The Monday essay: Albanese and the mistake of endlessly appeasing the Israel lobby

If Labor continues to toe the pro-Israel line while ignoring the events in Gaza, it could lose not just the next election but the moral authority that has set it apart from conservative parties.

The commemoration of the October 7 2023 Hamas attacks in Israel has become a flashpoint in Australian politics, showing the deeply polarised differences between Labor and the Liberal Party. When Prime Minister Anthony Albanese introduced a motion in parliament to mark the first anniversary of these tragic events – 1139 deaths in Israel and the start of a genocide in Gaza – his words were measured, designed to strike a delicate balance, where he sought to acknowledge the pain felt by Israeli and Palestinian communities, to emphasise the sanctity of innocent life, and to reaffirm Australia’s commitment to a two-state solution. While critics have said that his actions have been meaningless gestures and called on the Australian government to do more to act against Israel, his remarks highlighted the Australian government’s consistent call for a ceasefire, the protection of civilians, and a path toward peace that acknowledges both Israeli and Palestinian suffering.

Any statement on such a volatile issue would inevitably invite criticism from all sides. Yet, his approach reflected the need for bipartisanship, or at least the appearance of it, in handling such a sensitive international conflict. His speech demonstrated an effort to engage with multiple communities – Jewish, Palestinian, Lebanese – and to appeal to the broader Australian public, who, after witnessing a year of devastation in Gaza, are increasingly disillusioned with political and media narratives that minimise or obscure Palestinian suffering.

But whenever there is a need for political bipartisanship, the Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton cannot be relied upon, whose response to the Prime Minister’s motion was predictably combative and divisive. Dutton’s objection – that Albanese’s call for a ceasefire and peace efforts went beyond the scope of a commemoration – revealed his endless unwillingness to engage in constructive dialogue, where he portrayed Albanese’s balanced stance as duplicitous, accusing the Prime Minister of political opportunism. Dutton’s insistence that the motion should focus solely on the lives lost in Israel, while ignoring the broader humanitarian crisis in Gaza, speaks volumes about his political strategy: one of narrowing the conversation to suit his agenda while sidestepping the complex realities of the conflict.

Dutton’s reaction is emblematic of a broader pattern in his leadership, where he thrives on division, seizing on moments of national or international significance to sow discord rather than fostering unity. In this instance, his refusal to engage with the humanitarian disaster in Gaza reveals a lack of empathy not just for Palestinians but for the broader Australian electorate, which increasingly recognises the importance of addressing the root causes of conflict.

This approach to leadership may have short-term political benefits for Dutton, especially in electorates that are predisposed to his hardline stance, however, it also carries significant risks. The Liberal Party, under Dutton’s leadership, appears increasingly disconnected from the diverse, multicultural makeup of Australia and many immigrant communities, who might traditionally lean toward the Liberal Party for its economic policies, are finding themselves alienated by Dutton’s divisive rhetoric on social and international issues.

His tactics – focused on driving wedges between communities rather than uniting them – are out of step with a growing desire among Australians for political leaders who can offer genuine solutions to global challenges. As the Australian political landscape continues to shift, the need for bipartisanship on international crises such as the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is becoming more urgent. But Dutton’s divisive approach stands in the way of that possibility. Instead of offering a vision for peace and cohesion, he has chosen to exploit this tragedy for political gain, revealing once again how unfit he is to lead the country.

Labor’s unwavering support for Israel backfires

While Dutton has been busy sowing the seeds of division, the situation surrounding the Labor government’s handling of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict over the past year illustrates a deeper problem: the pursuit of appeasement, especially toward pro-Israel lobby groups, with little regard for the Islamic community or traditional Labor supporters. This dynamic has unfolded as the government bends over backward to maintain a pro-Israel stance, hoping this will quell tensions domestically and secure political favour. However, despite their efforts, the government, Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Senator Penny Wong, are receiving no political reward, and instead, they find themselves criticised from all sides.

At the outset of the conflict following the October 7 attacks, it appears that the Albanese government calculated that expressing unequivocal support for Israel, while minimising criticism of Israeli military actions in Gaza, would be a pragmatic short-term choice, where historically, conflicts between Israel and Palestine since 1987 have often faded from the spotlight after a short period, allowing governments to weather the storm domestically without long-term consequences. This time, however, the situation has dragged on for over a year, with humanitarian crises and continued military actions forcing the issue to the forefront of political discourse in Australia and around the world.

What Albanese would not have anticipated is how entrenched and enduring this crisis would become. The political pressure on the Labor government has mounted, especially from progressive factions within the party and the broader Australian community, many of whom are appalled by the loss of life and destruction in Gaza. Labor’s initial instinct was to support Israel and sideline the Palestinian cause, yet, despite this one-sided support for Israel, the government is still being lambasted by pro-Israel groups, as was shown by the hostile reception Albanese received during the commemorative event in Melbourne, where he was jeered while Peter Dutton was cheered.

This reflects a clear political reality: no matter how much the Labor government tries to appease the pro-Israel lobby, they will never satisfy their demands. Groups like Zionism Victoria have criticised the government for not being “steadfast” enough in their support of Israel, even though the Labor government has gone to great lengths to avoid harsh criticism of Israel’s actions. As a result, the Labor government has alienated their traditional base without gaining any new support from the pro-Israel factions they sought to placate and, in any event, they were unlikely to receive any political support from these groups who are traditionally conservative, right-wing and hostile to the interests of the Labor Party.

This political conundrum has left the Labor government appearing weak and reactive. Instead of taking a principled stand from the beginning – one that recognised the complexity of the situation and the need to balance the rights and lives of both Israelis and Palestinians – they chose the path of least resistance and, in doing so, they underestimated the long-term consequences of their approach. Labor’s reluctance to condemn Israel’s military actions, coupled with its failure to offer meaningful support to Palestinian communities, has exposed a disconnect with the progressive values many of their supporters hold dear.

Their attempts to please the pro-Israel community have not only failed to garner support but have also given the opposition, particularly Peter Dutton, ample ammunition to criticise them. Dutton has seized upon this opportunity, using the government’s wavering stance to paint Albanese as indecisive, while he positions himself as a staunch defender of Israel. This opportunistic strategy may resonate with parts of the Liberal Party’s base, but it further polarises the political landscape and damages Australia’s reputation as a neutral arbiter in global conflicts.

The Attorney–General Mark Dreyfus’s attempt to label the term “Zionist” as an anti-Semitic slur reflects the broader challenges facing the Labor government. While it is crucial to combat anti-Semitism, conflating all criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish sentiment is a dangerous oversimplification, as it undermines legitimate political discourse and fails to recognise the diversity of views within the Jewish community itself, many of whom oppose Israel’s actions in Gaza. By pushing this narrative, the government risks alienating those who seek a more nuanced understanding of the conflict and further distances itself from the Islamic community, which has long felt marginalised by Australia’s foreign policy stance.

This capitulation to powerful lobby groups, rather than standing firm on principles of justice and human rights, only weakens the Labor government, as it always has. Australia’s historical stance, particularly under leaders such as Gough Whitlam, was one of neutrality and fairness, recognising the need to avoid involvement in foreign conflicts and to condemn the loss of civilian lives wherever they occur. Today, however, the government appears beholden to a small but influential group, and this influence shapes policy decisions that fail to reflect the will of the broader Australian community.

Could Labor’s pro-Israel position cost it at the next election?

The Labor government’s one-sided support for Israel is setting the stage for a political fallout in the next federal election. The disconnect between Labor’s foreign policy stance and the concerns of many of its supporters, particularly those aligned with progressive values and the Islamic community, is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. As the crisis deepens and the death toll in Gaza, West Bank and Lebanon continues to rise, a growing number of Australians recognise the extent of the violence as genocide, and Labor’s failure to address this head-on, risks alienating a crucial part of its voter base.

The Australian Greens, led by outspoken MPs such as Max Chandler-Mather, have been unwavering in their criticism of Israel’s military actions and the Australian government’s complicity. Chandler-Mather’s pointed questions in parliament – demanding to know how many more atrocities must be committed before the government sanctions Israel – reflect the frustration of many Australians who feel that Labor has abandoned its moral compass. The Greens’ position has exposed a fundamental weakness in Labor’s strategy: their reluctance to condemn Israel’s actions forcefully and to end military cooperation with a nation that is, by many accounts, inflicting widespread destruction on civilians in Gaza.

This unwillingness to act decisively is not without consequence. Labor may believe that it is striking a careful balance to avoid inflaming tensions with Israel’s supporters in Australia, but this strategy has already proven to be a political miscalculation. Zionist organisations, such as the Zionist Federation of Australia, are now pressuring Labor government to preference the Australian Greens last on election ballots, a clear sign of how entrenched the influence of the Israel lobby has become in Australian politics.

This interference in electoral processes – where external organisations are seeking to dictate preference deals – demonstrates a troubling erosion of democratic integrity. Yet, the most significant political damage from Labor’s position on Israel is likely to come from within its own ranks. By failing to stand up for Palestinian civilians and aggressively distancing itself from the Greens’ more assertive stance, Labor risks bleeding votes to its left flank. The Greens, who have long positioned themselves as the true progressives on issues of social justice and foreign policy, can capitalise on this discontent, especially in urban and multicultural electorates where Labor’s voters are increasingly frustrated by their party’s complicity in what they see as a humanitarian catastrophe.

Albanese’s categorical rejection of any coalition with the Greens seems like a defensive posture designed to maintain a fragile sense of party unity. However, the strategic calculus behind such a declaration may be shortsighted. If the Greens continue to gain ground, particularly in seats in inner-city parts of Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney, Labor may find itself forced into some form of collaboration post-election. Albanese’s reluctance to engage with the Greens on foreign policy issues such as Israel and Palestine could come back to haunt him if Labor loses critical seats to the Greens. For many voters, particularly younger Australians and those in immigrant communities, Labor’s perceived indifference to Palestinian suffering may be a decisive factor in how they cast their ballots.

The next election will likely be fought on multiple issues, and while foreign policy may not always be the top priority for most voters, the situation in Gaza is unique. The scale of the devastation and the perception that a genocide is being carried out under the watch of complicit governments could galvanise voters in unexpected ways. Labor’s failure to offer a more balanced approach – one that acknowledges the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians – could cost it dearly, particularly if the Greens continue to gain traction by positioning themselves as the party of principle.

In rejecting any formal alliance with the Greens, Albanese may be playing to the immediate political gallery, attempting to secure a majority government without reliance on minor parties. Yet, this strategy ignores the broader shifts happening within the electorate. Voters are increasingly savvy, and many are no longer willing to accept the kind of mealy-mouthed foreign policy that sidesteps the hard truths of international conflicts. For Labor, the risk is clear: if it continues to toe the pro-Israel line while ignoring the growing humanitarian outcry over Gaza and Lebanon, it could lose not just the next election, but the moral authority that has historically set it apart from the conservative parties.