Choosing Israel over Palestine has eroded Albanese’s political capital

Albanese’s hesitancy to address Palestinian concerns while fully committing to the pro-Israel stance makes him appear weak rather than pragmatic.

The genocide in Gaza emerged as a defining international issue in Australian politics throughout 2024 and, along with it, created another round of political contention and media manipulation. The conflict, driven by Israel’s actions of genocide and the catastrophic toll on Palestinian civilians, has ignited extensive political debate in Australia, yet the discourse has often been manipulated to serve partisan ends.

This crisis, far from being a matter of universal and bipartisan moral agreement, has been weaponised by the Liberal Party and leader of the opposition Peter Dutton to attack the Labor government, positioning themselves as defenders of a narrative that aligns with right-wing Zionist interests. In the meantime, the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has found itself caught in a no-win situation, attempting to balance appeasement of pro-Israel factions with a broader commitment to human rights – a strategy that has brought neither political advantage nor respite from criticism.

Throughout 2024, the central issue has been the divisive framing of anti-Semitism within Australian political debate, and the term has been wielded with increasing frequency and intensity, often in ways that obscure the legitimate criticisms of Israeli state actions. Pro-Israel lobby groups, backed by influential segments of the media – mainly News Corporation and Seven West Media – have consistently blurred the lines between criticism of Israel, anti-Semitism and Zionism, using this conflation to delegitimise pro-Palestinian voices and place unrelenting pressure on the Albanese government. This rhetorical sleight-of-hand has narrowed the opportunity for nuanced debate and emboldened the Liberal Party to adopt an uncompromising stance, exploiting the conflict to their political benefit.

The Labor government’s response since October 2023 has been marked by its overt support for Israel, highlighted by statements from Senator Penny Wong and Albanese that consistently sought to placate pro-Israel groups. Yet, despite these overtures, the government has reaped no political rewards. Instead, their gestures have been met with relentless attacks from Zionist extremists who demand more concessions and accuse the government of enabling anti-Semitism and failing to sufficiently support Israel.

The recent attack on Melbourne’s Adas Israel Synagogue, which some have speculated may have been a false flag operation, highlights the volatility of the issue, and while Albanese’s visit to the synagogue was intended as a gesture of solidarity, it quickly devolved into a political spectacle. The Prime Minister faced abuse from Zionist extremists, accused of creating the conditions for the attack and criticised for appearing opportunistic. The media’s portrayal of this event was unrelentingly negative, reinforcing the perception of a government floundering under pressure.

This cycle of appeasement and backlash has left the Albanese government in a difficult position. Their financial and symbolic support – including promises to rebuild the synagogue – has been dismissed as insufficient by critics who demand ever greater commitments. The futility of this strategy is evident; no concession seems capable of satisfying the relentless demands of pro-Israel groups or mitigating the attacks from right-wing media outlets such as News Corporation. The result is a political environment in which Albanese’s efforts to navigate the issue have been framed as weak and ineffective, further emboldening the opposition.

The complexities surrounding the Adas Israel Synagogue incident highlight the dangers of reacting prematurely to highly charged events. That particular synagogue, known for its opposition to Israeli expansion, was an unusual target for an attack purportedly motivated by anti-Semitism and this incongruity has fueled speculation about the true nature of the incident. Why is that this particular synagogue was attacked? While caution should temper such speculation, the government’s decision to align itself so definitively with a specific narrative before a thorough investigation reveals a broader pattern of political miscalculation. By being pressured to act too quickly, failing to allow for due process and rushing to align themselves with pro-Israel narratives, Albanese and his government have invited criticism from all sides.

Dutton and the Liberal Party have also seized on this chaos with predictable precision and by framing themselves as unwavering supporters of Israel, they have used the conflict to paint the Labor government as indecisive, disorganised, and untrustworthy. This narrative has then been further amplified by a compliant media landscape, eager to highlight any perceived misstep by Albanese while presenting Dutton as a resolute and principled alternative. The media’s role in shaping public perception cannot be overestimated; by emphasising stories that align with pro-Israel sentiment and vilifying pro-Palestinian advocacy, they have contributed to a lopsided discourse that favours the Liberal Party, as they usually do.

In this political landscape, right-wing Zionist groups have played a significant role in shaping the narrative, and their attacks on the Labor government have been relentless and strategically calculated to exploit divisions within the electorate. By conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and painting Albanese as both insufficiently supportive of Israel and complicit in fostering anti-Semitic sentiment, these groups have succeeded in placing the government in an untenable position. This tactic not only silences dissent but also reinforces the perception that the government is out of touch with key segments of the community, a narrative eagerly embraced by the Liberal Party and their allies in the media.

Albanese’s missteps in balancing a divisive political landscape

Albanese’s approach to navigating the political minefield of Australia’s divided stance on the Israel–Palestine conflict has been a case study in caution, but also in miscalculation. In the lead-up to the 2022, Albanese promoted the notion of leading a “cautious government”, and making this seem like a virtue – to the chagrin of Labor supporters, who are keen to see a far more adventurist and reformist government – yet, on Israel–Palestine, he has been anything but cautious.

By leaning so heavily toward the pro-Israel and Zionist lobby, Albanese seems to have lost sight of two critical elements of political leadership: maintaining credibility through consistency and upholding a balanced, equitable stance. These missteps have not only alienated a significant portion of Australia’s Islamic and pro-Palestinian communities but also failed to secure the political capital he might have hoped to gain from Israel-aligned groups.

This strategy appears to be rooted in an overcorrection. Historically, Albanese has been a vocal supporter of Palestinian rights, calling for the recognition of the state of Palestine as recently as 2019 when he was sitting on the opposition benches. Yet, as Prime Minister, he has shifted dramatically, primarily in response to political pressures, and the problem is that this change has always come across as disingenuous. For a leader who once championed justice for Palestinians to now offer unflinching support to Israel – especially in an era marked by heightened tensions and global critiques of Israeli policies – looks less like statesmanship and more like capitulation to external lobbying forces.

Instead of fostering a sense of inclusivity for all communities, Albanese’s actions have sent a message to the Islamic and pro-Palestinian communities that their concerns are secondary, if not irrelevant. For example, incidents such as the attack on the Islamic school bus in Adelaide or the vandalism of a Melbourne burger shop with pro-Palestinian connections barely made it to the national conversation. In stark contrast, acts of anti-Semitism are swiftly and rightly condemned at the highest levels, but this disparity feeds into a perception of bias and the result is a growing disillusionment among communities who feel unheard and undervalued.

Albanese’s hesitancy to address Palestinian concerns while fully committing to the pro-Israel stance makes him appear weak rather than pragmatic and by trying to please one side without alienating the other entirely, he has ended up satisfying no one. Pro-Israel groups have not rallied to him with fervent support; instead, criticism persists, with even symbolic missteps – such as playing a game of tennis in Perth during this politically sensitive period – fueling negative optics. Meanwhile, pro-Palestinian advocates view his silence or deflection on their issues as a betrayal, creating a political vacuum that opposition figures like Dutton exploit with ease.

Dutton’s strategy, while highly divisive and polarising, is clear and consistent. His willingness to exploit racial and cultural tensions for political gain is deplorable, but it shows a stark contrast in leadership styles. Where Albanese equivocates, Dutton attacks. Where Albanese seeks to balance a delicate pathway, Dutton charges headfirst into controversy, secure in the knowledge that his base appreciates his unflinching approach, supported by the unwavering support from commercial mainstream media and, increasingly, the ABC. While Dutton’s tactics don’t align with any form of moral leadership, they make Albanese’s equivocation look weak in comparison.

The broader lesson for Albanese – or any political leader – is that principles and balance matter and the politically expedient path often leads to short-term gains but long-term instability. Albanese’s decision to align almost exclusively with pro-Israel interests may have been intended to protect him from criticism or secure support, but it has instead eroded trust and credibility.

Ultimately, a Prime Minister’s role is not merely to navigate political waters but to set a moral compass for the nation. Acts of violence and discrimination – whether against synagogues, Islamic schools, or pro-Palestinian burger shops – must be addressed with equal vigour and impartiality. A strong leader does not allow external pressures or lobby groups to dictate their policies. Instead, they prioritise justice, equity, and the wellbeing of all communities.

Albanese’s political miscalculation on this issue highlights a broader problem in Australian politics: the tendency to let fear of controversy dictate action. By “playing it safe” with one community while neglecting another, Albanese has alienated both. Worse still, he has squandered the opportunity to position himself as a leader capable of uniting diverse communities around shared values of fairness and mutual respect.

It could be argued that with such an intense pressure coming from pro-Zionist groups and the mainstream media – as well an unscrupulous leader of the Liberal Party – the criticism would have arrived anyway and irrespective of Albanese’s responses, but his failure to manage these issues effectively has not only damaged his political standing but also weakens Australia’s potential as a nation that values multiculturalism and equity over factionalism and partisanship.