Australia’s Changing View of the Israel-Gaza Conflict

The conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza has come to dominate global affairs over the past few months. Given the emotional and ideological investments many people have in Israel and Palestine, the conflict has not been a localized affair, with it creating substantial domestic polarization throughout the world. 

Part of the Hamas strategy when it launched its October 7 attack inside Israel was to send a shockwave of division through the West. In this endeavor, it has been extraordinarily successful. 

While social media has become even more of a minefield than usual, this division has also exhibited itself on Australian streets, with a significant scuffle outside a Melbourne synagogue in November. These kinds of incidents present a serious problem for governments in Australia, not only due to the targeting of people who have no involvement in the ongoing conflict, but also due to the broader Australian public’s distaste for any form of social instability and what is seen as the importation of foreign conflicts into Australia. 

These types of incidents create an added dimension to what is already a highly complex situation for the Australian government in terms of its international diplomacy, and how it negotiates domestic expectations. This is particularly difficult to negotiate for a Labor Party government. 

Much of progressive thought in Australia sees Israel as a “settler-colonial” state that lacks legitimacy and deserves to be challenged. For some, this includes challenge in the form of brutal acts of terrorism. This is a position that the Australian government cannot abide by, even if for Labor it means leaving some of its supporters disgruntled.

From the Australian government’s perspective, Israel is a state that has recognition in the international system, and has the right to defend itself against attacks to its sovereignty. Australia advocates for this as a principle within the international system. It is not a principle that can be picked or chosen depending on the state. Obviously, Australia hasn’t adhered to this principle perfectly with its assistance in the invasion of Iraq in 2003; this creates a fair amount of cynicism. But this doesn’t mean the principle is necessarily wrong. 

While initially Australia abstained from voting on United Nations resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza in October, and advocated support for Israel’s efforts to eliminate the threat from Hamas, in recent weeks Australia has shifted both its voting on U.N. resolutions and, most notably, its rhetoric concerning the war. 

In mid-December, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese issued a joint statement with New Zealand’s Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that raised concerns about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, opposed the forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, and any potential re-occupation of the territory. The three prime ministers advocated for “urgent international efforts towards a sustainable ceasefire.”

A week later, in an address to the Lowy Institute in Sydney, Albanese highlighted that “thousands of innocent lives” had been lost in an incredibly short amount of time. While reiterating Australia’s support for Israel’s right to defend itself, Albanese stressed that the way Israel’s military goes about that defense matters. He added, “Which is why we have called on Israel to respect international humanitarian law. This means civilians and civilian infrastructure must be protected, and humanitarian aid must be allowed to reach those in desperate need.”

Australia's concern at the moment is that there doesn’t seem to be an overarching strategy from Israel. There isn’t any discernible idea of what constitutes a “victory” aside from the elimination of Hamas, which could be impossible. Nor is there any roadmap for a post-conflict political arrangement in the Gaza Strip. These things make the situation open-ended, and a prolonged war increases the chances that Israel will lose support from its friends, like Australia. 

The longer the conflict progresses, the more likely it is that internal divisions within Australia over the issue will persist. Unlike other conflicts around the world, this conflict arouses passions, not only within communities with personal links to Israel and Palestine, but within a number of other political groups and persuasions. The Australian government remains very wary of how these passions can boil over onto Australian streets, and does not want to see any local individuals or groups targeted. Canberra’s changing position is a result of this concern.