Australia/Israel Review

Blessed are the peacemakers

On ABC Radio National “Saturday Extra” (May 10), former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert detailed his generous peace plan that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas rejected in 2008 – an inconvenient truth rarely acknowledged by the ABC.

“I proposed… a comprehensive solution on the basis of two states… the ‘67 borders, with a very small annexation of about 4.5 to 5% of the territory of the West Bank, but with a swap of territories that were part of the State of Israel… And then I also offered that the Arab side of Jerusalem will be the capital of the Palestinian state.”

Olmert said if the “Palestinian leadership [had] the courage and the vision and the inspiration to sign an agreement with us [it] may have changed the lives of millions of people in the entire region… I can’t ignore the failure of the Palestinians time and again.”

On ABC Radio National “Breakfast” (May 22), Yossi Beilin, who was instrumental in the genesis of the Oslo peace process in the early 1990s, said the motivation was to stave off the threat from Hamas, which was gaining in popularity among Palestinians. 

Hamas, he explained, presented itself as “a non-corrupt organisation… dedicate[ed]… to the good of the Palestinian people. But I knew exactly what they were saying. They were not shy about it, that they should never recognise the right of the Jews to have their own state.”

Beilin disagreed with the view that creating a Palestinian state will be seen as a “prize” for October 7, arguing that “for Hamas, this is a kind of a punishment if you recognise a Palestinian state which lives in peace with Israel.”

 

Factectomy

ABC Middle East Correspondent Matthew Doran either doesn’t know or doesn’t care that, according to international law, medical facilities lose their protected status when that status is abused. 

In a cross to ABC Radio “AM” (May 15), Doran was discussing the IDF’s strike in an area adjacent to the European Hospital in Khan Younis, where it correctly believed Hamas military commander Mohammed Sinwar was directing terrorism from tunnels, along with other senior Hamas terrorists.

Doran said if Sinwar was killed, “that would be a significant achievement for the Israel Defence Forces. It would, if true, would also cast doubt on Hamas’ insistence that it does not use hospitals and other civilian infrastructure as shelters.” 

However, he spoilt it by saying, “it is another example of Israel repeatedly attacking things like hospitals in its bid to target Hamas, something which is outlawed under international law.”

Doran’s online article about the strike (May 15) stated: “Hamas has rejected the IDF’s allegation that a Hamas command and control centre was buried beneath the compound. It has accused Israel of continuing to attack hospitals despite their protected status under international law.”

In contrast to Doran, Claudia Farhart’s report on SBS TV “World News (May 14) about the IDF strikes near the European Hospital correctly noted that “targeting hospitals is illegal under international law, but they lose that protection if they’re being used for acts harmful to the enemy.”

 

A ‘Claytons’ correction

An AIJAC complaint lodged with the ABC Ombudsman’s office regarding Doran’s mistake on “AM” was grudgingly upheld. 

An editor’s note quoting the relevant section of the Geneva Convention was put on the May 15 “AM” webpage. But the note did not explain that it was referring to Doran’s error, nor did it apologise for misleading ABC listeners on this highly contentious issue.

 

Hide and seek

An ABC online article (May 16) by Matthew Doran absurdly said, “The IDF has continually insisted Hamas hides its operations in hospitals and other civilian buildings, but many of its claims are presented without evidence.”

A report on the Australian website (May 16) provided the kind of detail Doran said was missing about the European Hospital strike. This included confirmation that the IDF had targeted the “emergency yard and rear compound of the European Hospital,” not the hospital itself. Significantly, it included a Saudi newspaper report that confirmed the existence of a tunnel system in the environs of that hospital being used by Hamas.

 

Counter claim

Speaking to ABC NewsRadio (May 16), Matthew Doran said, “we are hearing from local health authorities and Gaza’s civil defence agency that many of the bodies which are being brought out from the ruins of buildings, residential buildings that have been hit, are those of women and children.”

This, he said, is “fuelling further scepticism about Israel’s claim that it is only targeting Hamas, that it is doing everything it can to limit civilian casualties there.”

Doran went on to praise the bravery of Palestinian journalists. 

He failed, however, to caution listeners that the “local health authorities and Gaza’s civil defence agency” are Hamas-run. Moreover, many of “the incredibly brave and dedicated Palestinian journalists who are the eyes and ears of the world in Gaza” are either Hamas loyalists or know better than to report anything Hamas doesn’t want the world to know about. 

Later in the day on NewsRadio, the BBC’s Cairo-based reporter Rashdi Abualouf gave a more nuanced perspective on what Palestinians in Gaza are saying.

“There is a feeling among Palestinians that, yes, Israel sometimes, or maybe most of the time [is] targeting Hamas, but at any cost. So, if they want to kill like one person in this building, they don’t care if there is ten or 15 civilians around them,” he said.

Interestingly, contrary to most media reports that claimed Hamas released Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander as a unilateral goodwill gesture with no Israeli involvement, Abualouf revealed that four days after his release, Hamas issued a statement complaining that part of the deal had included Israel allowing food into Gaza, and Israel had not yet complied. 

 

Working on it

The Sydney Morning Herald ran a letter to the editor from AIJAC’s Jamie Hyams (May 19) that sought to dispel some of the many misrepresentations made by journalist David Leser in those papers on May 17 concerning the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.

Hyams wrote: “In criticising the IHRA definition of antisemitism for supposedly being overprotective of Israel, David Leser neglects to mention it specifically states that criticising Israel as you would criticise any other country is not anti-semitic.

“In saying it’s anti-semitic to describe Israel’s existence as a racist endeavour, the definition doesn’t refer to Israel’s behaviour, as Leser implies, but to suggesting Jewish self-determination in the Jewish homeland is somehow racist. Those who favour the Jerusalem Declaration do so because it lets them feel it’s somehow not anti-semitic to deny Jewish self-determination in their homeland while demanding that same right for others.

“Leser’s accusations of apartheid, genocide and deliberate starvation are simply wrong. All Israeli citizens have equal rights… In Gaza, Israel evacuates civilians for their safety, rather than targeting them as a genocidal army would do… Israel blocked aid, after enough entered Gaza to last for months, because Hamas steals and uses it to consolidate its power, but deliveries will soon resume.” The Age ran a shorter version of the letter.

 

Kenny Believe it?

On May 20, the Canberra Times ran Hyams’ letter responding to the weekly column by the paper’s political analyst Mark Kenny, who claimed (May 18) that Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza through its aid blockade and bombings.

Hyams wrote: “During the ceasefire at the start of the year, enough food went into Gaza to last months. Hamas steals the food and then sells it for exorbitant amounts so it can pay its terror squads, or uses it for coercion to maintain control. Article 23(2) of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides that the obligation to allow aid doesn’t apply if there is a serious reason to fear that consignments may be diverted from their destination or that a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy. Israel and the US have a plan to distribute the aid which avoids Hamas stealing it… The hospital compound bombing Kenny cites hit a Hamas control centre under the hospital, and probably killed Hamas’ military leader and other senior officers. Hamas’ militarisation of such facilities is the actual war crime.”

 

Predetermined determinations

On ABC TV “The World” (May 19), Chris Sidoti, a member of the UN Human Rights Council’s viciously anti-Israel Commission of Inquiry into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was being entirely disingenuous when asked if he and his colleagues agree that Israel is guilty of genocide. 

Sidoti replied, “Our Commission of Inquiry hasn’t yet got to that point. That’s a question that we are looking at.”

Yet, in the very next breath Sidoti said, “Many organisations have already looked at this question of genocide and have come to the conclusion that Israeli policy and practice in Gaza constitutes genocide,” making it very clear which way he is leaning.

Moreover, Sidoti has previously referred to Israeli military operations as “genocidal”. 

He dismissed the Netanyahu Government’s announcement it will “introduce basic amounts of food back into Gaza” as “PR”. Without mentioning Hamas’ coup and brutal rule over Gaza, Sidoti falsely claimed Gaza has been subject to a “siege” for the last 20 years. 

Meanwhile, commentator Chris Kenny in the Australian (May 17), defended Israel’s conduct during the war, writing, “We have never seen a war previously where so much care has been taken to warn civilians about attacks and provide pathways and ceasefires for safe passage.”

 

Implausible

The ill-informed assertion that the International Court of Justice had ruled in January 2024 that it was “plausible” Israel is committing genocide in Gaza cropped up again.

The Guardian Australia’s May 15 editorial wrongly stated that “The international court of justice ruled in January last year that there was a ‘plausible risk’ of genocide.”

In the Canberra Times (May 17), ANU academic Elise Klein damned the Albanese Government for its “refusal to stand up against what the International Court of Justice warned was plausible genocide in Gaza.” 

As AIR continuously points out, the Court’s former President Joan Donoghue explained to BBC TV last May, “The shorthand that often appears, which is that there’s a plausible case of genocide, isn’t what the Court decided.” It decided that the argument that Palestinians were entitled to make a case asking for protection under the genocide convention was “plausible”.

 

Detached analysis

Emeritus Professor Amin Saikal’s analysis in Nine Newspapers (May 16) of Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE seemed to suggest that Israel and the Sunni Arab states are in strategic opposition to, rather than the reality that they are part of, a US-aligned bloc countering Iran.

Saikal claimed that Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman (MBS) was “shaken by [former US President] Joe Biden’s regional plan (an ‘Israel first policy and withdrawal from Afghanistan’).” 

This is absurd. Recently revealed documents prove that Hamas, with Iran’s connivance, carried out the October 7 attack when it did because it feared the Biden Administration was on the cusp of securing a normalisation deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Saikal also claimed that Trump has “de-emphasised the importance of a healthy relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel,” and pointed to his support for a Saudi nuclear program as evidence. 

In Riyadh, Trump clearly articulated his support for normalisation, telling his hosts that Saudi–Israeli peace would “greatly honour… me.” 

Equally questionable is Saikal’s claim that Trump now “prioritises a de facto alliance with the UAE over Israel’s strategic partnership.” This ignores the fact that the UAE is a founding member of the Abraham Accords and shares many publicly acknowledged interests with Israel.

Meanwhile, Nine Newspapers’ Michael Koziol’s article on Trump’s visit offered a more factual-based perspective than Saikal. Koziol cited international affairs professor Gregory Gause’s opinion that the visit “shows [Trump] is unlikely to receive too much pressure from the Gulf states on the Israel–Hamas conflict. [Gause] believes that rather than Trump putting any real pressure on Israel to change course, he is more likely to wash his hands of it and tell Israel to ‘do what you want.’”

 

Risky business

On ABC Radio National “Breakfast” (May 15), John Bolton – National Security Adviser during President Trump’s first term – was critical of his former boss’ decision to drop economic sanctions on Syria.

Bolton said, “I don’t think we have nearly enough evidence at this point that the HTS regime and its head have fully and truly renounced terrorism. Apparently, when Trump met with al-Shara’a… he pressed [him] to grant full diplomatic recognition to Israel, take up a strong anti-terrorist position and fight against terrorist activities… I would have done it in connection with a negotiation that would result at the end of it in lifting the sanctions, not give the sanctions up and then hope they’ll be anti-terrorist in their policy.”

 

Mixed messages

On ABC Radio “World Today” (May 14), the Economist’s Gregg Carlstrom highlighted the contradictory messages coming from the Trump White House in relation to what it considers an acceptable nuclear deal with Iran.

Carlstrom said, “we’ve heard very mixed messages from the Trump Administration. Trump himself said last week they haven’t decided on the question of enrichment. His Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, said there can’t be any enrichment, that’s a red line. But previously, a few weeks earlier, Witkoff had allowed [Iran] to keep enriching under a new deal. So, it seems as if the Trump Administration still doesn’t know exactly what it wants from a new agreement with Iran.”

 

Wilting Greens

The link between the Greens’ poor showing at the May 3 federal election and their rabid anti-Israel rhetoric and policies was commented upon. 

In News Corp papers (May 9), AIJAC’s Colin Rubenstein wrote, “Australia has largely rejected and is punishing [the Greens’] hatred and inflammatory, divisive rhetoric… the Greens have shifted from primarily focusing on the environment to a preoccupation with hard-left politics. Its obsession with Israel is just one facet of this transformation.”

Former Victorian state Labor minister Philip Dalidakis in the Australian Financial Review (May 7) wrote, “The Greens candidates who ran on anti-Israel platforms saw their support collapse for a simple reason – voters saw through their performative outrage wrapped in slogans and devoid of solutions.”

On election day, the Advertiser warned readers against supporting the Greens, saying, “In the latest example of tacit support for terror group Hamas, Greens leader Adam Bandt in April refused to condemn a brutal crackdown on protesters in Gaza, in which Hamas executed at least six Palestinians. Instead, he condemned Israel, challenging the democratically elected ‘extremist Netanyahu government to end the occupation of Palestine.’” 

The West Australian (May 5) said, “Just as Indigenous Australians were hurt by the outcome of the Voice, Jewish Australians are also disillusioned by the politics that has promoted debilitating anti-Semitism. Mr Albanese talks about unity. He must address these fears and resist caving in to a further embrace of foreign policy that alienates our closest friends.”

The Australian (May 6), said voters “were repulsed by the [Greens] party’s weaponisation of the tragic circumstances in the Middle East for political advantage. Mr Bandt has been unable to accept that his party’s views on the Middle East conflict, which was sparked by the terrorist attack by Hamas on Israel, is seen as a threat to national cohesion. Addressing reporters on Monday, Mr Bandt denied his hardline position on Israel cost him votes.”

 

Mind the gap

ABC TV’s “The World” and SBS TV’s “World News” offered sharply contrasting coverage on May 9 of Israel’s decision to close three UNRWA-run schools in east Jerusalem – a move affecting hundreds of students.

Both reports noted that the closures followed a 2024 Israeli law banning UNRWA operations within its territory.

However, only SBS provided some crucial context that Israel accuses UNRWA schools of promoting anti-Israel incitement, and that the Israeli Ministry of Education says it will reassign all students to other schools.

 

---

Out of Parliament

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (ALP, Grayndler) – May 26 – press conference: “Israel’s actions are completely unacceptable. It is outrageous that there be a blockade of food and supplies to people who are in need in Gaza… Australia finds these actions as completely unacceptable, and we find Israel’s excuses and explanations completely untenable and without credibility. People are starving, and the idea that a democratic state withholds supply is an outrage.” 

Then Opposition Leader Peter Dutton (Lib., Dickson) – May 1 – Israeli Independence Day message: “Yom Ha’atzmaut is a powerful commemoration of statehood and a profound statement of survival, resilience and hope. 

“Yom Ha’atzmaut is a time to honour the Jewish people’s ancient and unbroken connection to the land of Israel – and their extraordinary journey through millennia of exile, persecution and renewal. It’s a time to reaffirm Israel’s right to exist, to defend itself, and to flourish as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. 

“It’s a time to reject the propaganda and false equivalence that emboldens antisemitism. And it’s a time to condemn the evil of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.”

Note: There was no Israeli Independence Day message from the Prime Minister this year.

Foreign Minister Senator Penny Wong (ALP, SA) – May 6 – asked on Sky News about Israel announcing its new military campaign in Gaza, “It’s all about getting the remaining hostages that Hamas still has. What’s your response to this move?”: “Well, first, my principled response is Australia continues to call for a ceasefire. We want to see the hostages returned and we want to see humanitarian aid delivered. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is catastrophic. No aid has gone in for weeks. So, we will continue to call on all parties – ceasefire, hostage returns and humanitarian aid to be delivered.”

Senator Wong – May 6 – asked, on ABC Radio National, “Would your government allow the arrest of Benjamin Netanyahu if he were ever to visit Australia?” replied, “We don’t speculate on hypotheticals.”

Opposition Leader Sussan Ley (Lib., Farrer) – May 13 – asked, at a press conference if she still agreed with a statement she had made in 2008 that she was sympathetic to the Palestinians because they had to pay the price for the Holocaust: “I don’t… I took a trip… to Israel. I spent a lot of time seeing what was happening on the ground. The impact of that trip and the changed geopolitical circumstances of the Abraham Accords… and then, of course, the hideous events of October 7… have changed my thinking on the entire subject… I remain a steadfast friend of the Palestinian people and I wish that we had, right now, a partner in this peace process. I wish that we had leadership of the Palestinian people that was not letting them down quite so badly, because right now, what we are seeing is not a party interested in peace with Israel. It is not a party interested in a secure Israel behind secure borders, and it is not a party interested in a just and lasting peace.”

Greens Leader Senator Larissa Waters (Qld) – May 15 – press conference on being elected leader: “We stand firm always on social justice and human rights. Whether that’s First Nations justice, whether that’s a free Palestine… we will always be there, calling out atrocities, calling out a genocide… I know a lot of wonderful Jewish voters are backing the Greens because they don’t want a genocide either.”

Greens Deputy Leader Senator Mehreen Faruqi (NSW) – May 15 – press release: “Migrant and multicultural communities in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne have backed us for speaking the truth and standing against the genocide in Gaza.”