Did Australia ditch West Bank sanctions for a security council seat?

Why did Australia withdraw from a UK-led move to impose trade sanctions on Israeli businesses in the illegally occupied West Bank?

It’s a question on many people’s lips, ever since the ABC revealed Australia was involved in talks with European nations — which saw 12 countries this month commit to trade sanctions against illegal Israeli settlements — but pulled out late in the process. Just when you thought the Albanese government couldn’t get more disappointing. 

Indeed, diplomatic sources were “disappointed” Canberra backed away, despite indicating it was open to taking more action, with one telling the ABC it had “missed an opportunity” to heap pressure on Israel. The UK, France, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden carried on without us, with the UK in particular provoking Israel’s ire after accusing Israeli settlers of ethnic cleansing.

The ABC did not speculate as to why Australia withdrew — though one source did, suggesting our government was worried about domestic politics. A Department of Foreign Affairs spokesperson said it was “concerned blanket import bans present practical challenges, including how to ensure they do not inadvertently harm Palestinian businesses”, adding that it would pursue “further targeted measures … to deter illegal settlements”.

Australia’s absence from the joint statement had already raised eyebrows, well before the ABC revealed we were almost part of it. It was, frankly, strange that our government wasn’t on the statement, given we have often been in lockstep with allies like the UK and Canada when it comes to sanctions and statements against Israel. As many noted, these were similar sanctions to the ones outspoken backbencher Ed Husic called for at July’s Labor conference, a motion for which he could not even find a seconder.

There’s good reason to suspect domestic political considerations once again got in the way of pursuing international justice. I initially wondered whether Australia’s absence was related to the recently concluded Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, where the line between criticism of Israel and antisemitism was at times blurred, despite the best efforts of some witnesses to demarcate the two.

Anthony Albanese was cowed into calling the royal commission after the Bondi massacre, and seems wary of anything that could reignite claims he is hostile to Israel. Nevermind that 79% of Australians recently expressed an unfavourable view of Israel, suggesting most can tell the difference between a state and a religion.

The ferocity with which UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband has been attacked over sanctions — he has been labelled antisemitic, despite being Jewish, not to mention a longtime friend of Israel — lends credence to the idea Australian Labor did not feel it could take that heat right now. So too would the ludicrous question the PM was “hit with” by The Nightly reporter Latika Bourke on Sunday, asked if he was “a fraud” for accepting an award given he “screwed up the response to the worst massacre since Port Arthur”. (“No,” Albanese replied, to his credit.)

The PM’s recent statements on the world stage offer another potential reason his government backed away from the recent joint statement and sanctions — and another reason to abhor that decision. On Monday, Albanese launched Australia’s pitch for a seat at the UN Security Council for 2029-30, under the tagline “We listen. We partner. We protect.”

Could the Albanese government be keeping its power dry (and its diplomatic stoushes to a minimum) for this bid, for which it will require support from two-thirds of the General Assembly? Curiously, the only other candidate so far for the available non-permanent seats is Finland, which did sign onto the West Bank’s sanctions statement, along with its Nordic neighbours. Australia is leaning into its “middle power” status, for which it might want to come off as taking the middle ground, Ed Sheeran-like, and refusing to piss off anyone.

We will likely never know why exactly the Australian government withdrew from the major step taken by our allies this month to try to put a stop to ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. Whatever the reasoning, it throws into doubt whether we are even the sort of country that deserves to be on the Security Council, which it has pitched as focused on protecting civilians in overseas conflicts through proactive diplomacy, and amplifying the voices of small and mid-sized states.

In its UN bid, Australia claims to “listen”, “partner” and “protect”. Unfortunately, that tagline doesn’t specify who we listen to, partner with, or protect. But our refusal to join with our allies on West Bank sanctions suggests it is not always the countries in need of protection that the Australian government is listening to.