Anthony Albanese says Australians want to see two things happen on the conflict in Gaza: “One, they want people to stop killing each other … Second thing that they want is for conflict to not be brought here.”
On both counts the Prime Minister will be disappointed. From the perspective of Benjamin Netanyahu and indeed a large number of Israelis, the war will not stop until hostages are released and Hamas ceases to threaten their existence.
The Israel Defence Forces are moving into Gaza city. An additional 60,000 reservists have been mobilised to occupy a densely populated urban area, where Hamas will fight its ground. There will be more deaths of Hamas fighters, of the largely supportive Palestinian population and of IDF soldiers. Urban warfare – house-to-house fighting to take and hold ground – is desperate and bloody. Hamas also will agitate for violence in the West Bank.
Many Palestinians may choose to show support for Hamas in preference to Mahmoud Abbas and the largely hated Fatah group running the Palestinian Authority. A two-state solution is impossible unless enough people in the region actually want it. There has been ample opportunity for Gazans to rise up against the Hamas thugs who impose a brutal order in the Strip. They haven’t done so. Gazans may fear Hamas, but polling suggests they also support their terrorist rulers.
Albanese doubts the accuracy of opinion polling in the area, but a group called the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research based in Ramallah has been competently surveying opinion for years. In a May 2025 survey, 85 per cent of people surveyed in the West Bank opposed disarming Hamas and 74 per cent opposed expelling Hamas military leaders from Gaza. Remarkably, 67 per cent of people surveyed in the West Bank expressed satisfaction with Hamas’s “performance in the current war”. Only 13 per cent were positive about Abbas.
If elections were to be held in Gaza and the West Bank any time soon – an unlikely proposition – Hamas would win on a wave of popular support, claiming “the fruits” of international Western recognition for a Palestinian State. Albanese is right to say, “Hamas don’t support two states, they support one state.” But the terror group is happy to take recognition on the pathway to its one-state goal.
The test for Albanese is this: does he see anything in the bilateral relationship with Israel worth saving? There is much we should value. First, there is the position of more than 100,000 Jews in Australia – good citizens, taxpayers, quiet contributors, now feeling increasingly beleaguered.
Then there is Israel’s increasing power in the Middle East, its links to Arab states likely to expand through the Abraham Accords. This could help enhance our own interests in the region.
There is Israeli technology, cyber, defence equipment and AUKUS related, but also with strengths in medicine, energy and education. Rejuvenated cooperation could boost growth and productivity in both countries. Our intelligence links helped save numerous Australian lives when an aircraft bomb plot was foiled with an Israeli tip-off in 2017.
The counter-terrorism relationship remains important. And we should be mindful that Israel and the US will remain close well after Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have left office. Albanese’s instincts to align with like-minded left-wing governments in Europe will not help our interests in Washington, which still is the decisive factor in our national security. These interests matter to Australia – and to Israel – more than simply the size of our trade relationship and they are invisible in the government’s current policy approach. Could Albanese and Netanyahu acknowledge these positive factors?
Albanese’s second claim about what Australians want “is for conflict to not be brought here”. Again, he is likely to be disappointed. ASIO boss Mike Burgess said last March “in terms of threats to life” anti-Semitism is the security body’s top priority.
The growth of the pro-Palestinian movement, spurred by the government’s willingness to tolerate weekly street marches in Sydney and Melbourne, continues to act as a focus for radicalisation.
While many people marched on Sydney Harbour Bridge for peaceful reasons, many hold views far from the mainstream, and the extremities of these groups pose a violent risk to Australian Jews and their supporters. The protesters are not going away. Their extreme fringe is emboldened after shifting government policy on Palestine. Violence in Australia in the form of attacks on Jews, or terrorism, is a heightened possibility.
These more radicalised views are given oxygen by ministers misrepresenting what Israel is doing in Gaza.
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke’s comments on Wednesday are a case in point. Burke defended Albanese after public criticism from Netanyahu but did so by attacking the IDF: “Strength is not measured by how many people you can blow up or how many children you can leave hungry.” That is a gross misrepresentation of Israel’s military operations, drawing on months of highly inaccurate media reporting about the conflict.
Moreover, Burke’s comments are dangerous: taken literally, his mistaken characterisation of IDF behaviour may incline some activists in Australia to more violent retaliation. We should expect more from government ministers than parroting biased media stories.
Remember, in this conflict it is Hamas, not the IDF, that targets civilians. It is Hamas that controls aid delivery in Gaza and stages media photo opportunities of hungry Gazans to shift Western government policy. This is not to deny human suffering in the war – it is regrettably obvious. But calling only for an end to the war denies Israel’s need for Hamas to destroyed once and for all. No country could live under the risk of another 7 October 2023. Labor’s two-state policy actually makes that risk more likely.
The public fight between Albanese and Netanyahu threatens to put Australia-Israel relations into the deep-freeze for decades. Israeli ambassador to Australia Amir Maimon is surely right to say “we need to calm things down so the relations don’t continue to deteriorate”. There is nothing to suggest that Albanese will heed the message. The PM was asked this week: “How do you get the relationship with Israel back on track from here?” He had no answer. The best Albanese could offer was: “We’ll continue to put forward Australia’s position.”
What could our governments do to put some stability back in the bilateral relationship? First, Albanese should propose a truce with Netanyahu in their public disagreements. The leaders have much to disagree over, but neither will move the other’s thinking by offering sharp public comment.
I sympathise with much in Netanyahu’s leaked letter and his Thursday interview with Sharri Markson on Sky News, but that’s not the point. Political leaders must often swallow their annoyances and pursue broader national interests. In Israel’s case it should matter that a longstanding ally like Australia is tempering its support. Our international backing is worth having and worth some effort to sustain.
We know Albanese can go quiet on differences when he sees a broader policy need; note his steady refusal to criticise Xi Jinping. With Netanyahu the agreement should be to share their differences privately.
Both should say the bilateral relationship has a history, a current and future value worth saving, and they are committed to that task, even given their political differences.
Second, Albanese should send a senior trusted Labor figure to Israel to make the case that we still value the relationship and want to set a foundation for co-operation that will endure serious differences over the current conflict. Make this a private visit away from the media and stress an intent on building, not belittling.
Third, the leaders should trade off some element of engagement in return for better understanding. For example, if Australia wants to reshape a new relationship with the PA, that can happen only if Israel allows physical access.
Perhaps we should ask for that in return for building a deeper, more respectful understanding of the IDF’s actually principled conduct of military operations under the international laws of armed conflict. We should, in other words, take the trouble to know what is happening before we chose to be so critical.
Fourth, the two prime ministers should do their best to corral their rhetoric and that of their political lieutenants, and agree also that democracies should generally issue visas even to political opponents. Why don’t our two governments plan on a reciprocal visit of mainstream parliamentary figures in the near future? Let’s get sensible politicians building some bridges and agreeing an agenda for future collaboration.
(Increasingly in Australia visas are being handled as a reward for backing the government. That should come as a serious danger sign.)
Point five, Albanese needs to offer a formal government response to the combating anti-Semitism plan produced by his envoy, Jillian Segal. He must seriously deal with this problem undermining the confidence of Australian Jews in their own country.
Finally, Albanese and Netanyahu should meet in New York. Neither will shift their fundamental positions on Gaza, but does that mean it is impossible for the two to find something creative to co-operate on? If Albanese cannot find a way to steady this friendship, he risks losing a partner of strategic, technological, regional and moral value, while Israel loses a long-term international ally. Both countries will be weaker for it.
This article was first published by The Australian.