The new war on Gaza: A historical context and recent escalation

The politics of the Middle East are complex but why do we only hear and see from one side of the conflict?

The Israel–Palestine conflict has long been a source of tension and violence in the Middle East and recent events, such as the attacks by Hamas militants and Israeli military retaliation, have reignited this long-standing conflict. These events, which have garnered condemnation from various parts of the Western world, particularly in Australia, highlight the urgency of addressing this issue.

The actions of Hamas, the central Palestinian political organisation with a history of militancy, where their attacks resulted in the deaths of over 1,200 people just on the other side of the border of the Gaza Strip, sparked outrage and condemnation. In response, the Israeli military launched a counteroffensive into Gaza, leading to even more casualties, almost 2,000. This cycle of violence has been a recurring theme in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, with each side blaming the other for initiating hostilities, which then leads to other attacks and counter-offenses.

The timing of these events, as observed in previous conflicts, is often linked to political events and developments in Israel. Previous wars in 2008, 2014, and 2021 coincided with general elections and other key political events within the country, which had nothing to do with Palestine, but were primarily used by prime ministers such as Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu to show their “tough-on-Palestine” credentials, a proven vote-winner in Israeli elections. In this instance, the push for a coalition government by Netanyahu that included “annexation and dispossession” plans for the Gaza strip only added to the tensions. The Israeli military had actually received a warning from Egyptian intelligence about an imminent attack on 7 October, emphasising the complex intelligence and political dynamics at play – the state of Israel possesses the most sophisticated missile alert systems in the world, and comprehensive surveillance over Gaza and, at this stage, it is quite unclear how Hamas managed to bypass this complex network and break its barriers.

Did Netanyahu want this attack to occur? It certainly helped achieve his political goals, as the coalition that he had been desperately trying to form since November 2022, was finally agreed to and signed, several days after the Hamas attacks.

A notable aspect of this ongoing conflict is the disproportionate casualty figures between the two sides, which is rarely featured within the western media. From 2008 up until September 2023, 6,407 Palestinians have been killed and over 152,000 injured, while 308 Israelis were killed and 6,307 injured, resulting in a ratio of approximately 20 to 1. This stark imbalance in casualties underscores the humanitarian crisis and the need for a balanced approach to resolving the conflict.

It is essential to recognise that the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is deeply rooted in historical, political, and territorial issues, making it a multifaceted challenge, along with the interference and influence over many years by large external powers: Britain, United States, the Soviet Union, and the manipulation of vassal states in the region. The perpetuation of this conflict is closely tied to political interests in all these countries and the manipulation of these events for political gain and international efforts have often exacerbated and prolonged conflict and deterred any potential for achieving a lasting resolution.

It is crucial to distinguish criticism of governments and movements from prejudice against people but this distinction is rarely applied within western media outlets. Criticising the actions of Hamas or the Israeli government should not imply a sweeping condemnation of the entire Palestinian or Israeli population. The conflict is not a black-and-white issue, and understanding its nuances is crucial for any meaningful resolution. The recent escalation underscores the urgency of addressing this long-standing and intractable conflict.

International responses and the plight of Palestinians

Australia, like many other countries, has historically shown solidarity with nations facing crises and attacks, and while it’s not unexpected, the federal government has expressed support for Israel’s “right to defend itself”, as it has done in previous conflicts but this stance does not adequately address the complex realities on the ground, and largely ignores the experiences from the Palestinian perspective.

The statement by Australian Foreign Minister Senator Penny Wong highlights the predictable nature of the government’s position: She recognises the apparent nature of the attacks and the security challenges Israel faces; there is a clear acknowledgment of the devastating loss of life and the attacks on civilians, reflecting the grim reality of the situation; the government’s call for the release of hostages and its support for Israel’s right to self-defence. These are all consistent with past positions taken by the federal government.

However, the concern lies in the double standard in Australia’s foreign policy. While Australia has swiftly expressed solidarity with Israel during times of crisis, the same level of support or sympathy is rarely extended to the people of Palestine. Public buildings, including the Sydney Opera House, have been floodlit with the colours of Ukraine; of France; and now the blue and white of Israel, to show solidarity with the suffering of those countries. But why do we never see the black, white, green and red of the Palestinian flag when their peoples suffer the consequences of terror attacks and indiscriminate wars governed by corrupted Israeli prime ministers?

The Australian government’s approach to this conflict lacks balance. When Israel initiates or responds to attacks with military force, the prevailing narrative often emphasises its “right to self-defence”. However, such leniency is not typically extended to Palestinians, especially those living in Gaza, which is often described as the largest open-air prison in the world.

Gaza, a densely populated area of 365 square kilometres, is home to over two million people, who are facing severe restrictions on their movement due to Israeli naval and land blockades. This situation is classified as an “occupied territory” by the United Nations, and the collective punishment by the Israeli military – a clear war crime according to Common Article 33 of the Geneva Conventions – has exacerbated the humanitarian crisis.

The international community, including Australia, must consider the long-term consequences of this approach. Continuing to subject the people of Gaza to such dire living conditions only serves to deepen the roots of the conflict and fosters a sense of desperation and hopelessness among the population, which can contribute to further radicalisation and violence.

In the interest of achieving a peaceful resolution, Australia and the broader international community should certainly advocate for restraint on both sides and the protection of civilian lives. While recognising Israel’s right to self-defence is important – as it is for any country – it should be equally vital to advocate for a fair and just resolution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. This entails addressing the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people, scaling back the incursions of Palestinian lands by Israeli settlers in the West Bank, and acknowledging the historical context and complexities of the conflict.

Media representation and advocacy for a balanced view

The media’s role in shaping public perceptions of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict cannot be underestimated. The way news is framed, the narratives that are emphasised, and the voices that are heard all have a profound impact on how the public understands this complex and protracted conflict. It is essential to critically assess how media coverage and advocacy shape the discourse and influence public opinion.

One notable aspect of media representation is the difference in attention given to humanising the suffering on both sides. The spotlight often falls on Israeli victims, their names, and stories, while Palestinian casualties rarely receive the same level of coverage. Israeli victims have names: Palestinian victims remain anonymous. It’s the basic rule of warfare – dehumanising the enemy makes it easier to eliminate them – and the western media has chosen who the enemy is, and quite clearly.

The exchange between the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Sarah Ferguson and Mustafa Barghouti, the Secretary General of the Palestinian national initiative, underscores this issue:

Sarah Ferguson: “No one is disputing that all lives are of equal value, and we understand where you are coming from. But I would like your human response to the events that we have seen over the past few days that have been reported by media the world over.”

Mustafa Barghouti: “I totally do not accept, and I refuse taking any child hostage. Do you want me to name to you, the 140 children who were killed in Gaza by Israeli airstrikes? Do you want me to tell you – let me answer – do you want me to tell you that I was shot by a sniper while I was treating an injured person with two gunshots and I’m still carrying these gunshots in my back. I am not going to talk about this … let’s look at the causes of this. The main cause of everything horrible that is happening to Palestinians and Israelis is the continuation of illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.”

When asked for a “human response”, it is usually Palestinians who are expected to provide it, while the same empathy is rarely sought from Israeli officials. No one is disputing that all lives are of equal value. Yes, they are. Every western media outlet questions this value and always places the value of Israeli lives far above Palestinian lives. It’s been obvious for many years.

This imbalance in media portrayal not only perpetuates a one-sided perspective but also fuels resentment and frustration among Palestinians. Such disparities in the portrayal of suffering can deepen the divide between the two communities and hinder the prospects for peace.

Another concerning aspect is the selective reporting of extremist rhetoric. While the media highlighted offensive chants by some Palestinian protestors at the steps of the Sydney Opera House, it is essential to acknowledge that extreme views can be found on all sides of the conflict, including on the Israeli side. The failure to consistently address inflammatory statements made by Israeli individuals or politicians leads to a skewed perception of the situation.

Furthermore, the lack of scrutiny when extremist statements are made by Israeli officials perpetuates an environment where moderation and balanced dialogue are stifled. The Israeli Defense Minister’s reference to Palestinians as “animals” is one such example. The failure to challenge such rhetoric can contribute to the dehumanisation of Palestinians, making it easier to justify harsh and punitive actions against them.

Critics often accuse those who highlight these disparities of engaging in “whataboutism” and of simplifying the complexities of the conflict. However, this criticism can be seen as a way to avoid addressing these issues directly. Instead, it is crucial to acknowledge the ongoing humanitarian crisis, disproportionate casualty figures, and the long-standing issues that underpin this conflict. The mistreatment of any population and the suppression of human rights should be a cause for concern, irrespective of the geopolitical context.

The media plays a significant role in shaping public perceptions of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the coverage should aim for a balanced and nuanced view, which includes the humanisation of all victims and holds all parties accountable for their actions and rhetoric. A more comprehensive and fair portrayal of the conflict is essential for fostering understanding and, ultimately, for finding a just and lasting solution to this protracted and deeply entrenched issue.

The role of political commentary and diplomacy

The Australian political landscape, like those of other nations, has witnessed a spectrum of opinions regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and such a multifaceted and deeply entrenched issue demands a nuanced approach from politicians and political commentators. However, recent statements from Australian political figures have drawn criticism for potentially exacerbating tensions and oversimplifying the situation.

Former Prime Minister John Howard’s assertion that the Labor government “did not do enough to condemn” Hamas attacks and comments from Deputy Liberal Party leader Sussan Ley regarding the need for the government “to do more” – without ever articulating what this could be – exemplify the challenge of discussing a highly sensitive and multifaceted issue. The political point-scoring during a crisis can undermine diplomatic efforts and hinder Australia’s role in the international community.

Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton’s suggestion that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was “condoning anti-Semitism” and calls for the release of national security details add another layer of complexity to the discourse, which were purely designed to undermine the Australian government. Why do conservative political figures always seek politicisation of national security and foreign policy issues? Foreign policy should be approached with seriousness and sensitivity, avoiding the politicisation of intelligence briefings and diplomatic matters.

The Australian political system generally adheres to the convention that opposition parties should refrain from overt criticism of foreign policy, particularly during international crises. Foreign policy decisions are often based on intricate international relationships, treaties, and strategic interests, which are not readily influenced by domestic political posturing. Instead, a bipartisan approach that puts national interests ahead of political advantage is essential in foreign policy matters.

If there is going to a push that “now is not the time for whataboutism” and to provide more balance perspectives – which essentially is another way of shutting down debate – it should also be acknowledged that now is also not the time for political point-scoring by conservative opportunists such as Dutton and Ley. Opposition parties have a role to play in holding the government to account, but during foreign policy crises, their approach should prioritise national interests and international diplomacy over partisan politics.

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict remains a highly complex and contentious issue with deep historical roots. International responses, including media representation, diplomatic engagement, and political commentary, play a significant role in shaping perceptions of the conflict and influencing potential pathways to peace.

While the conflict persists, it is imperative for all parties, including the international community and foreign governments, to exercise restraint and to support efforts for a just and lasting resolution. The delicate nature of this conflict requires careful and balanced diplomacy, and any political commentary should prioritise national interests and the well-being of all affected communities. A thorough understanding of the complexities and nuances of this conflict is essential for charting a path toward a peaceful and equitable resolution.