logo
Opposition leader Sussan Ley accuses Penny Wong of overstepping in ‘unprecedented' Israeli minister sanctions

Opposition leader Sussan Ley accuses Penny Wong of overstepping in ‘unprecedented' Israeli minister sanctions

Opposition leader Sussan Ley has accused the Albanese Government of overstepping by slapping 'unprecedented' sanctions on two Israeli Government ministers.
She accused Penny Wong of acting 'unilaterally' in imposing Magnitsky-style sanctions on National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.
The Albanese Government joined the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Norway to sanction the pair, accusing them of 'inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank'.
'It is unprecedented to, as a government, take actions, sanctions on members of a democratically elected government. It appears that Penny Wong acted unilaterally on this,' Ms Ley told Sky New on Thursday.
'The Magnitsky sanctions were never designed to be used in this way, but to take action against terrorist regimes and bad actors.'
The Magnitsky legislation allows governments to impose targeted sanctions, such as asset freezes and travel bans, on foreign individuals responsible for serious human rights abuses or corruption.
Australia has only selectively deployed the sanctions, mostly on Russian individuals, since they first came into effect in December 2021 with the first set handed down in March 2022.
The Foreign Minister and Labor colleagues have defended the measure, with Ms Wong saying the duo had 'extremist rhetoric' including 'appalling and dangerous' calls for the forced displacement of Palestinians and the creation of new Israeli settlements.
Former Labor defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon also openly labelled them 'extremists.'
However when asked whether the Government had 'overstepped the mark', Ms Ley bluntly responded: 'Yes we do. Yes we do'.
Ms Ley's criticism of the collective move was echoed by her Coalition team on Thursday, with many calling for a briefing on the decision which they warned could have broader implications.
'We want to understand more deeply the rationale behind the government's decision making,' Nationals Senate Leader Bridget McKenzie said on Thursday.
'I think these sanctions do go against the intent of the Magnitsky sanction regime.'
Opposition legal affairs spokesman Julian Leeser has warned if the standard for triggering Magnitsky sanctions had been weakened it could impact Australia's standing abroad.
'This is a very serious step. When you read the government's statement, it suggests that it's actually lowered the threshold for applying sanctions,' he told the ABC on Thursday.
'Because these sanctions are being applied because of public comments of the two Israeli ministers and the big question here is whether this is a new standard that will be applied to the public comments of officials from other countries.'
Shadow foreign minister Michaelia Cash called the sanctions a 'very serious development' and said they should meet 'a very high threshold.'
While backing the sanctions and defending them as 'carefully considered', Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said he hoped Australia and Israel would 'continue our friendship'.
'I mean we want to continue our friendship with Israel, let me be clear about that,' he said.
'We've worked very carefully in relation to taking this step over a period of time.
'We've done this in combination with the United Kingdom in combination with Canada and with other nations.'
His shadow counterpart Angus Taylor went as far to question whether Ms Wong's call teamed with Labor's refusal to lift the defence budget after US pressure had prompted the Trump Administration to review the AUKUS partnership.
But Marles hit back at his 'breathless press conference' and said the Coalition needed to 'take a breath' on the AUKUS probe which he downplayed as a 'natural' decision of any new government.
Former Liberal politician and ex-US ambassador Arthur Sinodinos also rejected any link, noting Marles had publicly said he'd been aware a review was coming for weeks.
Both sides of politics have said ultimately they wanted to see a ceasefire and long-term end to the Gaza conflict.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Oil prices rocket as Israel strikes unleash rally in energy stocks
Oil prices rocket as Israel strikes unleash rally in energy stocks

AU Financial Review

time21 minutes ago

  • AU Financial Review

Oil prices rocket as Israel strikes unleash rally in energy stocks

Traders are scrambling to position for a violent spike in oil prices after Israel launched a wave of missiles against Iran, escalating fears of a broader war in the Middle East and unleashing a huge rally in energy stocks on Friday. The strikes were aimed at eliminating Iran's nuclear program and ballistic missile capabilities, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warning the attacks would last until the threat was removed.

Netanyahu knew the lethal risk of striking Iran. But he did it anyway
Netanyahu knew the lethal risk of striking Iran. But he did it anyway

The Age

time23 minutes ago

  • The Age

Netanyahu knew the lethal risk of striking Iran. But he did it anyway

The attack without warning by Israel against a range of targets across Iran is unprecedented, even by the new standards of behaviour established since the April 2024 Iranian strike against Israel. That attack, in turn, was carried out in response to Israel's strike against Iranian military personnel in Iran's diplomatic compound in Damascus. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has characterised it as a necessary action to forestall the existential threat posed to his country by Iran's desire to weaponise its stockpiles of enriched uranium. Yet only a few months earlier, US President Donald Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified before the Senate intelligence committee that the intelligence community assessed Iran was not actively pursuing nuclear weapons and nor had its supreme leader allowed such a program to be commenced. If they weren't reacting to an imminent threat, then why choose to bomb Iranian targets now? The answer is because they could. Or more particularly because the environment that would allow them to do so would not be any better in the future. They had long wanted to conduct such an attack, but the political and military conditions have not allowed them to. That has changed. To begin with, Iran's air defences were significantly degraded as a result of Israel's October 2024 air attack. It takes some time to rebuild such a capability, and the longer Israel waited, the more likely it would be that Iran could mount some sort of air defence against an attack. In addition, Tehran's 'Axis of Resistance' had been significantly degraded over the past 18 months – in particular, Lebanese Hezbollah has suffered leadership decapitation and significant personnel and materiel losses. Its resupply routes through Syria have also been significantly compromised with the fall of the Assad regime. In the past, such an attack by Israel could be expected to elicit a robust response from Hezbollah against northern Israel; today the group is both able to respond but also must determine whether its priority is to rebuild domestically or to support its Iranian ideological and financial sponsor. And for all its public signalling, there are many in the Trump administration who support the attack against Iran. Trump has cast himself as the master dealmaker and as someone who wants to avoid war. He has described the Iranians as tough negotiators and claimed they were close to a deal. But Netanyahu accused the Iranians of stalling and dragging out the talks with no prospect of acceding to Washington's non-negotiable demand to stop processing any uranium. Loading Trump denied any US involvement in the attack, but Netanyahu was quick to praise him in his televised address following the attack. Trump is playing coy. While the next round of talks with Iran were to be held on Sunday, there is virtually no chance of them going on while Iran is being attacked. Diplomacy is a slow process, and there is a feeling that the diplomatic track had by no means been exhausted.

Netanyahu knew the lethal risk of striking Iran. But he did it anyway
Netanyahu knew the lethal risk of striking Iran. But he did it anyway

Sydney Morning Herald

time24 minutes ago

  • Sydney Morning Herald

Netanyahu knew the lethal risk of striking Iran. But he did it anyway

The attack without warning by Israel against a range of targets across Iran is unprecedented, even by the new standards of behaviour established since the April 2024 Iranian strike against Israel. That attack, in turn, was carried out in response to Israel's strike against Iranian military personnel in Iran's diplomatic compound in Damascus. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has characterised it as a necessary action to forestall the existential threat posed to his country by Iran's desire to weaponise its stockpiles of enriched uranium. Yet only a few months earlier, US President Donald Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified before the Senate intelligence committee that the intelligence community assessed Iran was not actively pursuing nuclear weapons and nor had its supreme leader allowed such a program to be commenced. If they weren't reacting to an imminent threat, then why choose to bomb Iranian targets now? The answer is because they could. Or more particularly because the environment that would allow them to do so would not be any better in the future. They had long wanted to conduct such an attack, but the political and military conditions have not allowed them to. That has changed. To begin with, Iran's air defences were significantly degraded as a result of Israel's October 2024 air attack. It takes some time to rebuild such a capability, and the longer Israel waited, the more likely it would be that Iran could mount some sort of air defence against an attack. In addition, Tehran's 'Axis of Resistance' had been significantly degraded over the past 18 months – in particular, Lebanese Hezbollah has suffered leadership decapitation and significant personnel and materiel losses. Its resupply routes through Syria have also been significantly compromised with the fall of the Assad regime. In the past, such an attack by Israel could be expected to elicit a robust response from Hezbollah against northern Israel; today the group is both able to respond but also must determine whether its priority is to rebuild domestically or to support its Iranian ideological and financial sponsor. And for all its public signalling, there are many in the Trump administration who support the attack against Iran. Trump has cast himself as the master dealmaker and as someone who wants to avoid war. He has described the Iranians as tough negotiators and claimed they were close to a deal. But Netanyahu accused the Iranians of stalling and dragging out the talks with no prospect of acceding to Washington's non-negotiable demand to stop processing any uranium. Loading Trump denied any US involvement in the attack, but Netanyahu was quick to praise him in his televised address following the attack. Trump is playing coy. While the next round of talks with Iran were to be held on Sunday, there is virtually no chance of them going on while Iran is being attacked. Diplomacy is a slow process, and there is a feeling that the diplomatic track had by no means been exhausted.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store