Telling Israel the killing must stop in Gaza is not antisemitic

The lack of any middle ground in commentary about Gaza is striking. Advocates press hard for their side without conceding any ground to the other. Emotions are raw and, even though Australia is far removed physically from the conflict, in an era where identity is king, complex issues are simplified and assertions amplified. There is little effort towards, or room for, reasoned debate. It is with this in mind that I read with some concern Mike Kelly’s opinion piece in which he essentially accused the Australian government of antisemitism.

Let me say at the start that I am neither Jewish nor Muslim, not a friend of Israel or Palestine, nor an enemy of either. I am also not a member of any political party. I follow the region with an academic interest and professional military background. I can find strong arguments to support certain positions of both sides, but also gaping holes in the logic of both.

Mohammad Shouman carries the body of his daughter, Masa, who was killed in an Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip, at her funeral in Rafah on Tuesday. Credit: AP

There is no doubt that the October 7 Hamas-led operation was an abhorrent terrorist attack and Israel was completely justified in responding. I also acknowledge that, as a state actor, Israel is – fairly or unfairly – held to a higher standard than its largely non-state adversaries in conducting military operations. It also, fairly or unfairly, enjoys the unwavering military and political support of the world’s only real military superpower. That gives it a freedom of action not enjoyed by any other regional actor.

In contrast to the article’s assertion, Israel is not engaged in an existential conflict. Despite the rhetoric of some of its enemies, none of its adversaries in the Axis of Resistance are capable of threatening the integrity of the state of Israel. Israel has an unmatched technological advantage against its enemies, has long enjoyed air supremacy in the region and it also has the support of the world’s most capable military. The claim that Israel has no strategic depth because it is physically small ignores the fact that it achieves strategic depth not only through its relationship with Washington, but more importantly courtesy of its (undeclared) nuclear weapons. Strategic depth is not simply a geographic concept.

It is important to discredit the claim that Israel is engaged in an existential conflict, because Kelly subsequently argues that “Israel’s methods in applying the laws of armed conflict need to be viewed in the context of its fight for survival”. In other words, Israel is allowed to apply a different set of standards because of the nature of the conflict it sees itself in. He then cites the tests of military necessity and direct military advantage that underpin the laws of armed conflict but strangely, as a former military lawyer, he neglects to mention another very important element of those same laws – proportionality.

To the world watching the devastation being wrought in Gaza, it is the issue of proportionality that most exercises people’s minds. The issues of necessity, advantage and proportionality are by their nature subjective tests, but the proportionality test is surely measured differently if one claims to be reacting to an existential threat. The rather strange argument that the Australian government knows Israel really had only one way to fight in Gaza – because, when it was in opposition, Labor supported Australian Defence Force involvement in the anti-Islamic State operation in Mosul – is both a false analogy and predicated on an evident belief that there is only one way to conduct a military campaign.

On Tuesday in Tel Aviv, released hostages (from left) Sharon Aloni Cunio, Lena Troufanov, Meirav Tal, Ilana Gritzewsky and Raz Ben Ami hold posters of their loved ones still held in the Gaza Strip.Credit: Getty Images

There is also a certain disingenuity in the claim that the quicker the conflict is over, the quicker the Israel-Palestine issue can be resolved, including getting the Israeli government to accelerate dismantling settler outposts. The largely anaemic outposts are a minor irritation compared with the much more substantial and permanent settlements that grow yearly as thousands more houses are approved for construction by the Israeli government in defiance of international law. The almost 700,000 settlers create facts on the ground designed to make any future two-state solution less and less practical.

The main point of Kelly’s argument, though, centres on Australia’s decision last week to vote in favour of a resolution calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza. The December vote stood out because of the overwhelming number of countries in favour. Not only that, all of Washington’s NATO allies, as well as all of its Five Eyes partners, voted in favour of the resolution. France and the UK, both of which have provided air support to protect Israel during one of Iran’s rocket and missile attacks, also voted in favour of the proposal.

The resolution’s wording was acknowledged as not perfect. However, in concert with nearly every other liberal democracy in the world, Australia was sending Israel a message that, after more than a year of military operations in Gaza, in which Hamas’ leadership has been eliminated and the organisation rendered largely combat-ineffective for a period of time, there has been enough killing. There should be nothing controversial in this.

The issue is emotive, for sure. Most commentators are partisan, and advocates by and large exhibit no capacity for introspection, so both sides talk past each other. For all the news that events in the region rightly generate, the reality is that only a small number of Australians have any direct connection with the conflict. So governments such as Australia’s should, and do, vote on matters in the United Nations based on what they believe is in the national interest, not in the interest of one particular group. Given the emotiveness, Kelly’s article was disappointing because it didn’t add to the quality of the debate.

Dr Rodger Shanahan is a Middle East analyst, author and former army officer.

Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.