Australia joins global condemnation of Israel's actions in Gaza
In a statement welcomed by terrorist organisation Hamas, Australia joined 27 other countries, including Five Eyes partners the UK, New Zealand and Canada, to call for urgent end to the war in Gaza, where the suffering of civilians had 'reached new depths.'
'The Israeli government's aid delivery model is dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity,' it said.
'We condemn the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food. It is horrifying that over 800 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid.'
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke told ABC News Breakfast the 'images of children being killed, of horrific slaughter, of churches being bombed' were 'indefensible.'
'On our own, Australia is not a loud voice or a decisive voice on the other side of the world. But when you can make a statement together with so many other significant powers, then we're all hoping that there'll be something that'll break this,' he said.
'It's a powerful statement. It's got countries, powerful countries from all around the world saying the same thing. The slaughter has to end.'
Mr Burke added that 'none of this changes the fact that the hostages need to be released,' a call reflected in the statement's wording that 'hostages cruelly held captive by Hamas since 7 October 2023 continue to suffer terribly.'
The call was immediately rebutted by Israel's Ambassador to Australia Amir Maimon who said 'it sends the wrong message to Hamas' – a view echoed by the Coalition's shadow foreign minister Michaelia Cash, who slammed a 'disappointing' attack on Israel that ignored the role of Hamas in the conflict.
Mr Maimon swiftly refuted the international demands, reposting the Israeli Foreign Ministry's stern criticism of the joint statement as failing to focus pressure on Hamas and recognise the terrorist organisation's role and responsibility for the situation.
'All statements and all claims should be directed at the only party responsible for the lack of a deal for the release of hostages and a ceasefire: Hamas, which started this war and is prolonging it,' said the full Israeli foreign ministry response.
'Instead of agreeing to a ceasefire, Hamas is busy running a campaign to spread lies about Israel. At the same time, Hamas is deliberately acting to increase friction and harm to civilians who come to receive humanitarian aid.'
The ministry said Israel had repeatedly agreed to a concrete proposal for a ceasefire deal while Hamas 'stubbornly refuses' to accept it.
Senator Cash said moral outrage at the situation should instead be directed at Hamas, and while it was important for aid to be able to flow into Gaza that 'the right system' must be in place to prevent its interception by the terrorist organisation.
'Hamas could end the suffering of the people of Gaza by freeing the remaining Israeli hostages and laying down their weapons. This war began because of Hamas's abhorrent attack on Israeli civilians,' she said.
US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee also denounced the joint declaration as 'disgusting!'
'25 nations put pressure on @Israel instead of savages of Hamas,' Huckabee wrote on X.
He added, 'Gaza suffers for 1 reason: Hamas rejects EVERY proposal. Blaming Israel is irrational.'
The statement, which hit the headlines as MPs arrived in Parliament House for the pomp and ceremony of the opening day of the new term, condemned the 'denial of essential humanitarian assistance' to civilians and urged the Israeli Government to comply with its obligations under humanitarian law.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong issued the full position via her X account, describing the humanitarian situation as 'catastrophic.'
Hamas, which is designated by Australia as a terrorist organisation, welcomed the international calls emphasising the need for humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza via the United Nations and the condemnation of the 'starvation policy pursued by the Israeli occupation.'
In a press release to the Yemeni state news agency, it said the killing of over 800 Palestinian civilians at 'aid distribution points controlled by US-Israeli mechanisms' underscored the 'brutality of this system and its criminal goal of killing and humiliating Palestinians.'
The international statement overshadowed the inauguration of the 48th Federal parliament, creating the first political stoush of Labor's second term.
The Greens welcomed the statement as 'significant' but urged the Government to sanction the entire Israeli cabinet to 'end its support and complicity in genocide,' with Senator David Shoebridge unveiling a petition by more than 2500 Australian healthcare workers calling for action to end the weaponisation of aid in Gaza.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Defining antisemitism is no threat to free speech. Without a definition, we are adrift
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism was adopted in 2016 as an educational and data-collection tool. It is deliberately non-legally binding and begins with a clear, universal sentence: 'Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.' Thirty-plus democratic governments, the European Parliament, the UN secretary-general, and tech giants such as Meta, have endorsed or incorporated the definition. Australia's special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, grounded her national plan released this month in the same wording, citing a 316 per cent surge in antisemitic incidents. All 39 Australian universities have endorsed or adopted a similar version to the IHRA definition. The universities do not include some of the IHRA's specific examples of antisemitism but do refer directly to criticism of Zionism as potentially being antisemitic, unlike the IHRA definition, which does not mention Zionism. The definition has become the world standard because it provides 11 practical illustrations that police, teachers and human rights watchdogs can map onto real-world cases – swastikas on playgrounds, synagogue bomb threats, or, yes, demonisation of Israel when it slips into Nazi analogies. Since Segal released her plan, there have been several recurring objections: 'It chills free speech.' Amnesty International warns the plan 'threatens people's rights to freedom of expression and assembly'. 'It stifles criticism of the Israeli government.' Labor MP Ed Husic has said the 'definition instantly brings into question whether or not people will be able to raise their concerns of the actions, for example, of what the Netanyahu government is doing in Gaza.' 'It will be weaponised to defund universities and media.' Headlines warn of an 'inappropriate definition' used to strip funding from institutions. 'Weaponising antisemitism insists on the exceptionalism of the Jewish community'. Some argue that the 'Jewish establishment' is insidious in using antisemitism for nefarious ends. At first blush, these arguments sound like principled liberal concerns. Probe a little and they dissolve into a curious double standard that leaves every minority except Jews entitled to define the hatred they face. Why the 'free speech' objection misfires is because the IHRA definition is diagnostic, not punitive. The document itself states it is 'non-legally binding.' No one is jailed for foot-faulting it. While the special envoy has called for punitive action if patterned institutional antisemitism is not dealt with, the IHRA definition itself does not demand sanction. It is a working guide to what anti-Jewish racism looks like.
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Trump's ‘big new' visa fee could slug thousands of Australian travellers
Thousands of Australian business travellers, students and workers heading to the United States are set to be charged a $US250 ($383) visa application fee as part of changes introduced under President Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill'. Most Australians visiting the US as tourists enter the country under the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation, known as the ESTA waiver program, and will have to pay a small increase for the cost of the waiver – from $US21 ($32) to $US40 ($60). The US Department of Homeland Security has the authority to begin the new 'visa integrity fee' from October 1. It can be applied to anyone who is not eligible for the ESTA visa waiver, including the Visa H-1B (specialty occupations), Visa F-1 (academic student), Visa B-1/B-2 (business visitor/tourist visitor), and Visa J-1 (exchange visitor). People will need to pay the charge once their visa application is approved – in addition to the cost of the visa. The fee will also apply to intra-company transferees (Visa L-1) or the visa category for extraordinary ability or achievement in arts, athletics and sciences (Visa O-1). Not everyone can qualify for the ESTA waiver. Among exclusions are people with criminal records or certain dual-nationalities. Travellers in line to be slugged by the 'visa integrity fee' could be eligible to recoup the full cost after legally exiting the country.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Defining antisemitism is no threat to free speech. Without a definition, we are adrift
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism was adopted in 2016 as an educational and data-collection tool. It is deliberately non-legally binding and begins with a clear, universal sentence: 'Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.' Thirty-plus democratic governments, the European Parliament, the UN secretary-general, and tech giants such as Meta, have endorsed or incorporated the definition. Australia's special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, grounded her national plan released this month in the same wording, citing a 316 per cent surge in antisemitic incidents. All 39 Australian universities have endorsed or adopted a similar version to the IHRA definition. The universities do not include some of the IHRA's specific examples of antisemitism but do refer directly to criticism of Zionism as potentially being antisemitic, unlike the IHRA definition, which does not mention Zionism. The definition has become the world standard because it provides 11 practical illustrations that police, teachers and human rights watchdogs can map onto real-world cases – swastikas on playgrounds, synagogue bomb threats, or, yes, demonisation of Israel when it slips into Nazi analogies. Since Segal released her plan, there have been several recurring objections: 'It chills free speech.' Amnesty International warns the plan 'threatens people's rights to freedom of expression and assembly'. 'It stifles criticism of the Israeli government.' Labor MP Ed Husic has said the 'definition instantly brings into question whether or not people will be able to raise their concerns of the actions, for example, of what the Netanyahu government is doing in Gaza.' 'It will be weaponised to defund universities and media.' Headlines warn of an 'inappropriate definition' used to strip funding from institutions. 'Weaponising antisemitism insists on the exceptionalism of the Jewish community'. Some argue that the 'Jewish establishment' is insidious in using antisemitism for nefarious ends. At first blush, these arguments sound like principled liberal concerns. Probe a little and they dissolve into a curious double standard that leaves every minority except Jews entitled to define the hatred they face. Why the 'free speech' objection misfires is because the IHRA definition is diagnostic, not punitive. The document itself states it is 'non-legally binding.' No one is jailed for foot-faulting it. While the special envoy has called for punitive action if patterned institutional antisemitism is not dealt with, the IHRA definition itself does not demand sanction. It is a working guide to what anti-Jewish racism looks like.
