Penny Wong wants an ‘immediate humanitarian ceasefire, leading to a sustainable ceasefire’

It’s extraordinary to see a Prime Minister so openly contradicted by his Foreign Minister, and under Penny Wong’s plan it would be bad luck for Israel and a great win for the Hamas group.

There’s a split between Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong on Israel, and Wong is winning. That’s bad luck for Israel, and a great win for the Hamas group.

It’s extraordinary to see a Prime Minister so openly contradicted by his Foreign Minister.

Albanese has repeatedly and correctly refused to demand Israel immediately stop fighting Hamas, which started this war on October by massacring 1200 Israelis, and still holds more than 100 Jews hostage, including raped women and a baby.

Last Tuesday, for instance, Albanese was asked twice on the ABC’s 7.30 whether he’d now demand “an immediate ceasefire” from Israel after its accidental killing of an Australian aid worker in Gaza. Both times he dodged the invitation.

Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong are split on Israel. Picture: John Appleyard

He was then asked a third time whether he’d demand a ceasefire from Israel – not Hamas – “whether or not the hostages are released”.

Again, he wouldn’t bite on that astonishing suggestion, which would hand victory to Hamas.

But Wong, meanwhile, was saying what Albanese wouldn’t.

A week earlier she’d already put out a statement calling for “an immediate cessation of fighting in Gaza”.

And just three days after Albanese’s 7.30 interview she was at it again, getting our ambassador to the UN to demand “an immediate humanitarian ceasefire leading to a sustainable ceasefire” in a statement to the Security Council.

Penny Wong put out a statement calling for ‘an immediate cessation of fighting in Gaza’. Picture: Fox News

To rub it in, Wong on Saturday repeated she wanted “an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, leading to a sustainable ceasefire”.

Yes, she said Hamas should release its hostages – which it won’t – but her demand for an immediate ceasefire was clearly aimed at Israel.

Which brings me to this question: what’s the difference between a leftist and a conservative?

The answer is: A leftist pushes dreams; a conservative calculates the consequences.

Apply that now to Wong’s demands for an immediate ceasefire, and a “sustainable” one.

That will sound so obvious to the uninformed. Yes! An immediate ceasefire! End the killing of the innocents.

But let’s look at the almost inevitable consequences.

First, if Israel were to cease firing now, Hamas would win.

Israel is fighting not just to free its hostages but to destroy Hamas. Any immediate ceasefire or peace deal must mean Hamas survives, unless it’s forced by its sponsors to agree to quit Gaza.

Muslim radicals everywhere would celebrate its victory. Hamas will have slaughtered more Jews in a single day than anyone since the Holocaust, yet survived. It will also have weakened Israel internationally, as Western governments like ours pander to the host of Muslim immigrants each country has imported.

In fact, a poll of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank published last month by the respected Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research shows 56 per cent already thought Hamas would win.

So what would a Hamas win mean?

In Gaza, Hamas would keep control. It would almost certainly win any election in the West Bank, too, which is why the ruling Fatah party has not dared hold one since 2006.

Any new Palestinian state would then be led by the terrorists who planned the October 7 massacre. It would be an Islamist terrorist nation with a border – under Wong’s plan – just 6km from Israel’s main airport and right through Jerusalem.

A win for Hamas would also undermine all the moderate Arab leaders who have made peace with Israel, and would strengthen fundamentalist Iran, Hamas’s main sponsor.

And forget Wong’s dream of a “sustainable peace”. She’s just not listening to Hamas.

It’s been clear: While Israel lives, Hamas will kill.

Ghazi Hamad, from the Hamas political bureau, pledged Hamas would commit October 7 massacres “again and again”. Khaled Mashal, the leader of Hamas abroad, rejected Wong’s “two state” solution, saying: “We reject this notion, because it means you would get a promise for a (Palestinian) state, yet you are required to recognise the legitimacy of the other state, which is the Zionist entity.”

The official Hamas charter, updated in 2017, also refuses to accept Israel’s existence: “The establishment of ‘Israel’ is entirely illegal … Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.”

That’s why Israel feels it must fight until Hamas is defeated.

Wong’s way would almost certainly produce a terrorist-led Palestinian nation that will slaughter Jews again, but next time backed by an even stronger Islamic-fascist Iran, while the West would be even weaker and Israel more friendless.

So Albanese is right not to demand an immediate ceasefire. But why does he tolerate Wong saying the opposite? Who’s in charge here?

Originally published as Penny Wong wants an ‘immediate humanitarian ceasefire, leading to a sustainable ceasefire’