Narrow, vested interests no way to shape foreign policy

Before the 2022 election, Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong gave no indication that they intended to break with Australia’s long-established bipartisan political stand in supporting Israel. It was a different era, before Hamas’s October 7, 2023 massacre of 1200 Israelis, mainly civilians, and capture of 250 hostages. Ever since, the Albanese government has distressed the nation’s Jewish community by shifting ground at the UN in advocating a more pro-Palestinian position in relation to the long-running conflict, and in its lukewarm responses to blatant anti-Semitism in Australia.

Comments on Monday by Industry and Science Minister Ed Husic, the most senior Muslim in the government, suggest a political motive has been in play. Mr Husic urged Muslim voters to stick with Labor at the coming election. In doing so, he indirectly confirmed what we have suggested numerous times; that government positions have been taken with an eye on retaining Labor seats with high proportions of Muslim voters, especially in western Sydney. We suggested it recently when the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Senator Wong’s response was that she respected the ICC’s independence and was “focused on working with countries that want peace to press for an urgently needed ceasefire”. The Prime Minister’s silence was deafening.

Foreign policy should not be shaped by narrow political considerations. In deserting long-held positions, the government has put Australia’s longstanding, close relationship with Israel, the Middle East’s only Western democracy, under unprecedented strain, at a harrowing time when it needs friends around the world. If the motivation was not political, as Mr Husic strongly implied, Mr Albanese and Senator Wong owe the public an explanation for the profound changes in Australia’s positions.

Urging Muslims to vote Labor, Mr Husic pointed to some of the government’s worst moves, such as “particular advocacy within the UN and the international community, the way we’ve worked with others, particularly around ceasefire, the most recent efforts we’ve made in terms of Palestinian sovereignty”. At the right time, a ceasefire with Hamas will be important, when there is a chance of it leading to prolonged peace, which is possible in the case of the Israel-Hezbollah deal.

In September, Senator Wong made a precipitous call at the UN for a timeline to be set for an international declaration of a Palestinian state. It was wildly premature. At the height of the conflict, Palestinians were (and are) leaderless, aside from Hamas’s malign influence, and no details on how a state would be negotiated or run have been worked out. A fortnight ago, Australia’s UN representative overturned our past positions to support draft resolutions recognising the “permanent sovereignty” of Palestinians to the occupied territories’ natural resources, and demanding Israeli compensation for a wartime oil spill in Lebanon 18 years ago.

In many UN votes, our position has been at odds with that of the US, our main ally. Australia’s Jews were also deeply offended by Senator Wong’s not calling in Iranian ambassador Ahmad Sadeghi over his vile social media posts calling for “wiping out the Zionists” from Palestinian “holy lands” and lauding former Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah as a “blessed martyr”. What more does Mr Husic think Muslim voters want?

With the election shaping as a cliffhanger, Labor is concerned about the grassroots movement, Muslim Vote. It is targeting three western Sydney seats: Blaxland, held by Education Minister Jason Clare, Watson, held by Home Affairs and Immigration Minister Tony Burke, and Werriwa. Blaxland and Watson should be safe, on 15 per cent margins, with Muslims making up 35 and 27 per cent of electors. That is followed by Calwell, in Melbourne’s north, with 25.6 per cent Muslim voters and Werriwa with 17.2 per cent. Many factors influence election results. But fostering sectarian politics by weakening long-established foreign policy principles is a capitulation too far.