Israel at war: Tony Burke has undermined Anthony Albanese by ‘crossing a line’

Tony Burke with Anthony Albanese in parliament.Picture: NCA NewsWire / Gary Ramage

There is now an understandable perception that the Albanese government has shifted its posture on the Israel/Hamas war over the past week.

Not so much by the Prime Minister himself but certainly among some of his cabinet ministers while he has been away.

Unsurprisingly, there is a growing disquiet among Jewish leaders about the strength of the government’s convictions.

The internal divisions within Labor over the broader issue of the Jewish state and the Palestinian territories are becoming starker and the public commentary increasingly ill-disciplined and uninformed.

It is now becoming a problem that Anthony Albanese will have to deal with when he returns from Washington on Saturday.

Albanese, despite having been slow to respond initially, has since been on message and stayed on message.

But clearly some ministers don’t feel the same obligation.

The Prime Minister has given certain members of the Labor ministry and caucus a freedom to ventilate.

The danger has been the appearance of division within the government and either a weakness or unwillingness by Albanese to rein them in.

While giving leeway to some, it will be difficult for the Prime Minister to defend Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke’s contribution to the debate on ­Friday.

Burke hasn’t just made life ­ difficult for the Prime Minister, he has undermined what Albanese has been trying to achieve in managing what is a highly charged and complex political issue.

When asked whether he agreed with the use of the word genocide to describe Israel’s response to a terror attack that killed 1400 Israelis, Burke refused to answer with any clarity.

Rather than just saying “no” as he should have, the member for Watson suggested “listeners will find their own words to be able to describe it”.

“I think when we go straight to ‘do we use this word, do we use that word?’, we end up in an argument about linguistics. What I want to talk about is what’s happening to individuals.”

Burke is an experienced politician and minister. He knows the effect of his words, or the absence of a singularly important one.

As leader of the house, he would also know that when he leans into a point on an issue, it has meaning.

This can only be regarded as deliberate posturing by Burke, with his western Sydney constituency in mind, and fidelity to the NSW Right’s pro-Palestinian position.

The Jewish leadership in Australia, already concerned about a softening in the government’s language, was understandably horrified.

Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council executive director Colin Rubenstein said Burke had “crossed a line”.

“Tony Burke has made vile and ridiculous statements, implying both that Israel is an ‘apartheid state’ and an offensive moral equivalence between the slaughter of Israeli civilians by Hamas and the accidental deaths of Palestinian civilians who are unfortunately being killed because Hamas made a deliberate decision to use them as human shields.

“His remarks are dreadful and are well outside official Australian government policy.

“Tony Burke should have unequivocally rejected the question about ‘genocide’ rather than sidestepping and deflecting it.”

Albanese has been consistent on the issue so far.

He will have an expectation that when he is abroad making comments on behalf of Australia on an international conflict that his cabinet remains unified around the message.

Burke, and others, have not only undermined this effort, but given the impression of a cabinet divided and a softness of policy rigour under pressure.

Burke has risked presenting a broader political problem for Albanese in so far as his post-referendum authority as leader will be tested if he can’t be seen to maintain discipline.