Why a truce in Gaza will not bring peace to Australian politics

The prospect of a ceasefire in Gaza should, by rights, calm the immense pressures that have led to a long and debilitating argument in Australia about peace in the Middle East and the right of Israel to defend itself. It should, by rights, bring an end to the ugly displays of antisemitism being witnessed on Australian streets.

The reasoning is simple: if the warring sides in Gaza and Israel can reach an agreement to end the fighting, the combatants in the Australian debate should be able to scale back their hostilities as well. But the ceasefire sets out an uncertain future. It is due to begin on Sunday and will take at least six weeks for anyone to be sure it has accomplished what is being promised in its first stage. And it does not abolish the enmities that drive so many of the global and local arguments about Israel and Palestine. A truce in Gaza, in other words, will not bring peace to Australian politics.

Illustration by Simon LetchCredit:

One point is essential from the start: the ceasefire is a bright moment in a dark time. If it is honoured by both sides, it should save lives and bring more aid to civilians in a war zone. It should stop bombs falling on Palestinian homes and rockets landing on Israeli neighbourhoods.

A second point is that a successful ceasefire could ease some of the anger in Australian communities about the conflict and bring a pause to the aggressive public protests that have troubled authorities. The fact is that Jewish families feel unsafe, Jewish schools are being patrolled by guards, and synagogues need around-the-clock security – a situation that should be unthinkable for Australia.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says he hopes the agreement can “lower the temperature” in the community, while Opposition Leader Peter Dutton also welcomes the ceasefire. The political tensions, however, are bound to resurface.

Some of the Australian voices on the Middle East are so invested in their positions that a ceasefire is unlikely to change the daily domestic argument about who is weak on terror, who is soft on antisemitism and who is doing the most to support a lasting peace – on the assumption, of course, that any Australian decision can make a difference in the Middle East.

Dutton sides with Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Greens leader Adam Bandt stands against Israel and in favour of a Palestinian state. Only Labor tries to hold the uncomfortable middle ground. Albanese supports Israel’s right to defend itself, denounces Hamas, criticises the death of civilians in Gaza, condemns antisemitism and offends Netanyahu by supporting votes at the United Nations that call for a ceasefire.

In seeking to unify, Albanese ends up antagonising those who have chosen their side. Bandt accuses him of arming Israel; Dutton accuses him of abandoning it.

A lasting peace might change this domestic dynamic, but there is very little chance of an outcome so significant before the Australian election. The first stage of the truce will take 42 days. This could continue beyond that point, however, for a second stage to be negotiated so that Israeli troops can withdraw from Gaza. The permanent ceasefire may take much longer to achieve. In theory, the third stage will lead to a reconstruction plan for Gaza, but there is no timetable for this goal. There are signs the Israel Defence Forces want to keep a buffer zone in northern Gaza, drawing new lines on old conflicts over territory.

Nothing in the ceasefire is at odds with anything the Australian government has argued in the 15 months since Hamas slaughtered civilians in the October 7 attacks. The agreement is broadly in line with what Albanese has said over many months: Hamas must release the hostages, Israel should avoid civilian casualties and the humanitarian catastrophe should end.

This narrows the scope for Dutton to attack Albanese over the outcome. He cannot claim, for instance, that Albanese was wrong to call for a ceasefire now that Israel has agreed to one. At no point did Albanese argue for a peace deal that would favour Hamas. Foreign Minister Penny Wong has always said there should be no place for Hamas in any lasting settlement of the conflict.

Dutton cannot claim that Albanese was wrong to call for a ceasefire now that Israel has agreed to one.

Not that the facts matter when there is a political attack to be run. Dutton will continue to accuse Albanese of deserting Israel. And he will continue to blame Albanese for all antisemitism, no matter where it flares. That much is clear from his rhetorical leap last week, when he blamed Albanese for the way pro-Palestinian protesters chanted against Jewish Australians at the Sydney Opera House on October 9, 2023, just days after the Hamas attack.

“Every incident of antisemitism can be traced back to the prime minister’s dereliction of leadership in response to the sordid events on the steps of the Sydney Opera House,” Dutton said.

There is a breathtaking arrogance behind that sort of spin. Dutton speaks as if nobody can check the record – as if Australian transcripts can be dropped in a memory hole and sent to an incinerator like the paperwork in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Albanese clearly condemned the antisemitism. Asked on the day of the protest whether it should go ahead, he said: “I absolutely believe it should not.” He condemned the chants as “completely reprehensible” in an interview the day after the protest.

A ceasefire in Gaza should, by rights, end the distortions in Australia about who is to blame for antisemitism. But it will not. The spin will have to be challenged at every turn.

In the meantime, the government will need to get the domestic argument back to the cost of living. Albanese is aiming to do exactly that in a speech to the National Press Club next week. For all the focus on the Middle East, the real election contest has to be won at home.

David Crowe is chief political correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.