(The Age, 14/11/2023)
Israel won a rare and valuable surge of international support and sympathy when Hamas launched its terrorist attack on Israeli civilians.
But five weeks later, that sympathy is fast fading. Amid Israel’s fierce campaign to destroy Hamas, the daily coverage of civilian Palestinian deaths is distressing the world.
Western governments increasingly are emphasising the need to protect innocent civilians. Among them, Penny Wong. Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs on Sunday took the bold step of uttering the “c” word – ceasefire. Wong instantly drew criticism from Australia’s peak Jewish and Israeli groups and condemnation from the Coalition.
It’s not a new idea. The UN General Assembly more than two weeks ago called for a ceasefire by a vote of 120 nations in favour and 14 against, with 45 abstaining. But in that vote, Australia was one of the countries abstaining. Had Wong now reversed Australia’s position?
And Wong wasn’t the first or only minister in a Western nation to use the “c” word. French President Emmanuel Macron a day earlier had said: “We do urge Israel to stop.” There was “no other solution than, first, a humanitarian pause, going to a ceasefire,” said Macron.
But Wong hadn’t reversed Australia’s position, she hadn’t actually called for a ceasefire, and, unlike Macron, she certainly didn’t one-sidedly put all the burden of responsibility on Israel.
Australia abstained in the UN General Assembly because the resolution on the table made no reference to the barbarous attack by Hamas. It was an absurdist denial of reality. As if Israel had decided to bomb Gaza on a whim, unprovoked.
And the foreign minister was very careful in deploying the word. She didn’t actually call for a ceasefire, but “steps towards a ceasefire”. And while Macron had appeared to place all the burden on Israel, Wong emphasised that both Israel and Hamas had responsibilities: “We need steps towards a ceasefire because we know that Hamas – it cannot be one‑sided – we know that Hamas is still holding hostages, and we know that a ceasefire must be agreed between the parties.”
“But,” she continued, “we can also say that Israel should do everything it can to observe international humanitarian law. We have seen a harrowing number of civilians, including children, killed. This has to end. And we are particularly concerned with what is happening with medical facilities.”
And there’s a logic in discussing the conditions for, or “steps towards”, an eventual ceasefire. Because the war surely cannot go on forever. But it was enough. Wong had gone further than the US, whose Secretary of State Antony Blinken had called for “humanitarian pauses” but not a ceasefire. Why not? Why is it such a raw nerve? Chiefly because any call for a ceasefire is seen as an attempt to curb Israel’s right to pursue Hamas.
In Benjamin Netanyahu’s words, a ceasefire would be a surrender to terrorism. As former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put it: “People who are calling for a ceasefire now do not understand Hamas, that is not possible. It would be such a gift to Hamas because they would spend whatever time there was in a ceasefire in effect rebuilding their armaments, creating stronger positions to be able to fend off an eventual assault by the Israelis.”
But America’s Blinken has expressed just as much concern as Wong over the deaths of Palestinian innocents: “Far too many Palestinians have been killed, far too many have suffered these past weeks.”
And the US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, like Wong, at the weekend called for special care at medical facilities. The US “does not want to see firefights in hospitals where innocent people – patients receiving medical care – are caught in the crossfire”.
The difference? Wong clearly put responsibility for protecting hospitals on Israel, while the top American officials allowed enough ambiguity to include Hamas’ responsibility. Because Israel’s justification for fighting around some hospitals is that Hamas has built key facilities in tunnels underneath them.
Wong understood this yet placed the burden of responsibility for restraint on Israel. As she told the ABC’s Insiders show: “We understand the argument that Hamas has burrowed into civilian infrastructure, but you know, I think the international community, looking at what is occurring at hospitals, would say to Israel, these are facilities protected under international law, and we want you to do so.”
The simple fact is that Israel, while brutal in its tactics and sometimes careless, is better than Hamas. There is no moral equivalence. Unlike Hamas, Israel actually warns civilians to evacuate combat zones before it attacks. Unlike Hamas, Israel actually allows fleeing civilians to get out of harm’s way. Unlike Hamas, Israel has now agreed to humanitarian pauses for several hours at a time. Unlike Hamas, Israel is seeking to kill terrorists and civilian injury is incidental, while Hamas avoided Israeli military targets on October 7 and sought to torture and kill the most defenceless of civilians.
Israel’s higher moral standing is a key reason Penny Wong has appealed to it to exercise greater restraint. Another reason is Australia’s geography and geopolitical situation.
To Australia’s immediate north, the governments of Indonesia and Malaysia have taken strong positions against Israel. ANU Indonesia expert Greg Fealy, speaking of Indonesia’s President Joko Widodo, says: “Right from the very early days, Jokowi made very emphatic condemnations of Israeli violence, he’s called for an immediate cessation of hostilities, and he’s said he will carry the Muslim world’s message to the White House,” when he meets Joe Biden at the APEC summit this week.
In Indonesia and Malaysia, the West generally is under criticism for hypocrisy – for demanding that Russia and China obey international law, but allegedly giving Israel free rein to ignore it. And behind the scenes, Indonesia is exerting quiet pressure on Australia to take a harder line on Israel and a more sympathetic one on Palestinian civilians.
And Wong believes that she’s leading the debate and eventually will be vindicated. Anthony Albanese backed her in the House of Representatives yesterday and even Netanyahu has said that he would consider a ceasefire if “we have our hostages released”.
That, however, could be a long time coming.
Peter Hartcher is international editor.