The world sits idly by as Gaza burns

The destruction of Gaza is not the solution, and the actions by the Israel military and the Netanyahu government must be stopped now.

The United Nations held a critical vote during the week, with a focus on the ongoing Gaza conflict, calling for a ceasefire and a humanitarian truce. The numbers were comprehensively in favour of the ceasefire, as 120 countries voiced their support for the resolution, emphasising the global demand for an end to the violence. However, there was a surprising and controversial twist in this international response, as 14 countries voted against the resolution, including the United States and Israel.

It’s bewildering to imagine a nation opposing a ceasefire, especially when the conflict’s grim human toll has captured the world’s attention. Gaza has faced daily and indiscriminate bombing of dwellings, hospitals, schools, universities and shopping precincts for almost a month, resulting in thousands of deaths. What else would be needed to support a call for ceasefire?

This stark division in the vote revealed a complex web of international relations, with certain countries choosing to align themselves with the United States. The reasons for such alignment ranged from historical favours to the pursuit of future diplomatic advantages.

For example, Croatia, which cast its vote in favour of the United States: this is viewed as a “thank-you” gesture for the U.S. support during their quest for independence in 1991. This historical camaraderie influenced Croatia’s decision to stand with the United States and similar motivations can be attributed to other nations keen on securing favourable arrangements with the United States in the future.

While 120 countries supported the call for a ceasefire, 45 countries abstained from voting altogether, raising questions about their stance on the issue. One of those countries was Australia, which claimed that it refrained from supporting the resolution because it did not explicitly condemn the actions of Hamas. Do they need to go onto the streets of Gaza and ask the Palestinian families of those who have died to also condemn the actions of Hamas before they could support the resolution? What is Australia’s limit of tolerance to the wanton destruction, ethnic cleansing and genocide that’s happening in right front of our eyes?

This decision, however, underscores a broader and more difficult aspect of international diplomacy at the United Nations. For Australia, a country with its own interests and global diplomatic considerations, such a choice was made in an effort to avoid offending powerful allies and retain a delicate balance, rather than any human rights issues.

The non-binding nature of the United Nations resolution also raises questions about its practical impact and in the realm of international law, even if it were a binding resolution, enforcing it can be a daunting task. However, resolutions like these serve as opportunities for nations to express their positions on crucial global issues, making it a platform for countries to state their stance for the world to see, and built on further action.

In this case, the resolution was an unequivocal call to halt the destruction in the Gaza Strip. Countries such as France, New Zealand, Norway, and Slovenia voted in favour of the resolution, demonstrating a significant alignment with the resolution’s objectives. It’s essential to emphasise that this was not a scenario where “third world” countries were ganging up on Israel; rather, it was a global consensus urging an end to the hostilities.

Australia’s abstention in the vote, however, has raised concerns and controversy domestically and the decision to refrain from taking a clear stance on the issue was perceived by many as a failure to express solidarity with those affected by the conflict. It is crucial to note that the Gaza conflict has been characterized by humanitarian crises, and the world has watched with growing concern as the violence continues to escalate.

Furthermore, the conflict’s nature, with its heavy civilian toll – over 10,000 Palestinians, mainly women and children, have been killed in Israel’s retaliation to the events of 7 October, where 1,400 Israelis were killed by Hamas – has led to strong condemnations against the Netanyahu government.

As a diverse and multicultural nation, Australia must tread carefully to avoid stirring anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim sentiments. A call for a ceasefire may not have radically altered Australia’s domestic landscape, but it would have conveyed a message of compassion and concern for the people residing within its borders, regardless of their cultural or religious backgrounds.

Australia’s abstention was a passive stance, leading to criticism that it lacked decisiveness and assertiveness in the global arena. Australia’s decision to abstain from the United Nations resolution on the Gaza conflict raises questions about the nation’s foreign policy priorities, its commitment to humanitarian values, and its role on the international stage. The move has sparked debate and disappointment from those within the electorate, who expected a more principled and proactive approach from their government, including the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Australia’s abstention and its global middle-power position

A non-binding United Nations resolution may not appear as a decisive step in resolving a pressing and deadly conflict like the one in Gaza. However, it lays the foundation for future international diplomacy and action, offering a glimmer of hope in what is a grim scenario. With 193 member states in the United Nations, a diverse range of geopolitical interests must be considered when addressing global issues, including conflicts like the one in Gaza.

The purpose of such resolutions is to set the stage for further diplomatic efforts, which might encompass a broad spectrum of actions. These actions could involve lobbying for peace, implementing a UN peacekeeping force, or establishing a UN protectorate. However, these measures remain distant prospects, contingent on international support and cooperation, primarily from influential players like the United States.

The immediate and primary goal of this United Nations resolution was to halt the relentless targeting of civilians in the Gaza Strip by the Israel military, an issue that required immediate attention and international consensus. The abstention by Australia in the vote, though, reflects the intricate web of global relations that Australia finds itself entangled in due to security alliances like AUKUS and its historical alignment with the United States.

Australia’s decision to abstain in the vote highlights the complexities and constraints it faces on the global stage. While Australia’s abstention might seem like an independent decision – the U.S. voted against the resolution, whereas Australia abstained – but a closer look at the background commentary and statements made by Australian envoys at the United Nations reveals a different story.

In reality, Australia’s choice to abstain appears to be a less assertive, less committed position in the eyes of the international community and is in contrast to the crucial role Australia played in the creation of the United Nations in 1945, where figures such as Herb Evatt – who became the president of the UN – John Curtin, and Francis Forde played important roles in establishing the organisation, with the vision of providing smaller countries around the world a meaningful voice in international affairs.

However, nearly eight decades later, the global landscape has shifted significantly, and Australia’s ability to independently influence major world issues has dwindled. Despite its role in creating the United Nations and the ideals of providing a voice for smaller nations, Australia now finds itself struggling to assert its independent stance on the international stage.

In retrospect, a “yes” vote in favour of the United Nations resolution would have increased Australia’s international standing and potentially improved its relations with countries other than the United States. While Australia’s commitment to its alliances and its global partners is crucial, the abstention has exposed the nation to criticism and has raised questions about its place as an independent participant on the world stage. The consequences of this decision are likely to ripple through Australia’s foreign policy and diplomatic relations, making it interesting to observe how the nation will navigate its global role moving forward.

Australia’s alignment with the United States and its complex ties

The question of what special favours Australia secures by consistently aligning itself with the United States is a pertinent one, and it harks back to the days when Australia was often referred to as the “deputy sheriff” during the era of former Prime Minister John Howard. However, it is essential to scrutinise whether this alignment truly serves Australia’s interests, especially when considering specific cases.

An illustrative case in point is the ongoing matter of Julian Assange, the Australian citizen who remains incarcerated in Belmarsh Prison in London, facing extradition to the United States on charges widely perceived as politically motivated. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has met with President Joe Biden on multiple occasions to discuss the release of Assange, emphasising that “enough is enough” and that the case has dragged on for “far too long”, yet this plea has seemingly fallen on deaf ears.

Despite the diplomatic rhetoric and repeated assurances, the situation remains unresolved, with Assange’s legal plight continuing to drag on. Biden’s position, emphasising the separation between politics and the judiciary, suggests a reluctance to intervene in Assange’s case, causing frustration among those advocating for his release. Given Australia’s consistent alignment with the United States, one would expect some reciprocal goodwill or diplomatic support, especially in securing the release of one its own citizens facing a potential extradition. But, it is yet to happen.

Australia’s cooperation with the United States extends beyond political rhetoric. The recently formed AUKUS alliance, which the Albanese government inherited from the Liberal–National Coalition, underscores the nation’s alignment with its powerful ally. However, the reasons for such unwavering loyalty and co-operation are not always clear, considering the apparent lack of quid pro quo when it comes to crucial matters such as Julian Assange’s fate.

In the broader context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Australia’s foreign policy choices are being scrutinised closely. The recent letter of condemnation of Hamas and unequivocal support for the Israel government, signed by six former Australian prime ministers, has raised further concerns and ignited debate. The letter, signed by John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, and Scott Morrison, expressed support for Israel and its lauded its “promise” of avoiding civilian casualties, surely a naïve level of support, considering that over 10,000 Palestinian civilians have been killed, which raises the question of what measures the Israeli military have been taken to avoid civilian casualties, with such a high level of death and severe injuries.

Paul Keating, the only former prime minister who refrained from signing the letter, articulated concerns about its sharp and biased tone, advocating for a more balanced approach. This division within Australia’s political leadership – even if it former Prime Ministers – highlights the complexities of its approach to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

Moreover, the media discourse in Australia concerning the conflict is another point of contention and the narrative in the Australian media leans strongly towards the interests of the Israeli government. Palestinian representatives, when given a platform, are often pressed to condemn the actions of Hamas, while Israeli counterparts are seldom asked to address the actions of the Israeli military or the issue of ethnic cleansing in Gaza.

In light of these observations, Australia’s diplomatic and political stance in international conflicts, particularly in the context of its alignment with the United States and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, remains a subject of intense debate and scrutiny.

Complex diplomatic and domestic dynamics in Australia’s stance on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

As the Israeli–Palestinian conflict continues to unfold, it is increasingly evident that diplomatic challenges and domestic debates are mounting globally. Egypt, for instance, has condemned the recent bombings and attacks, expressing its concern over the escalating violence. Furthermore, several South American countries have taken the unprecedented step of severing their diplomatic ties with Israel. These reactions underscore the gravity of the situation and the need for the international community to address the crisis urgently.

However, when examining Australia’s position, the response appears one-sided, with limited room for nuanced or reasoned discussion. Senator Penny Wong’s call for Israel to heed the international community’s pleas for a ceasefire was met with harsh criticism from the Liberal Party and from Israel lobbyists in Australia, illustrating the polarised nature of the discourse.

Senator Wong’s warning that the international community will not tolerate ongoing civilian casualties in Gaza, while echoing global sentiments, was also met with similar resistance and the line between supporting a different countries diplomatically and expressing humanitarian concerns becomes blurred in such a polarised context, leaving Australian politicians navigating a difficult political terrain.

Another contentious issue arose when the Canterbury–Bankstown Council decided to fly the Palestinian flag, in solidarity with the people of Palestine. This move was met with significant local support, particularly in the federal minister Tony Burke’s constituency in the seat of Watson. In response to this decision, Burke defended the council’s choice, highlighting the importance of recognising Palestinian lives lost in the ongoing conflict.

Burke’s impassioned defence resonated with many in his electorate, where the tragic consequences of the conflict are felt acutely. The decision to fly the Palestinian flag was seen as an act of solidarity and acknowledgment of the Palestinian people’s grief and suffering. While the question of whether local councils should engage in international politics is a separate debate, Burke’s support for his constituents received wide approval.

However, the reaction from some quarters, including Sky News, News Corporation, the Liberal Party, and pro-Israeli lobbying groups, was predictably negative. This polarisation underscores the lack of space for constructive and balanced discussions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within Australia. The struggle to find a middle ground hinders the identification of the core problem and the application of a suitable solution.

In essence, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict remains a contentious and polarised subject in Australia, mirroring global debates. While there are no easy solutions to such a deeply rooted and historically charged conflict, the lack of room for nuance and reasoned discourse in Australian politics poses a challenge to finding a path toward a more balanced and constructive approach to the issue.

Representatives like Burke, who advocate for their constituents’ interests and concerns, play a crucial role in shaping Australia’s response to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The complexities and sensitivities of the issue demand careful consideration and balanced perspectives to navigate the domestic and international landscapes effectively.

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict presents a multifaceted challenge for Australia, with repercussions on both diplomatic relations and domestic politics. The ongoing debate highlights the need for constructive dialogue, diplomatic measures, and nuanced discussions to help address the crisis and bring about a meaningful resolution to the conflict. The destruction of Gaza and the continuing acts of ethnic cleansing are not the solution, and the actions by the Israel military and the Netanyahu government must be stopped now.