Pushing governments beyond words to real action to end Israel's crimes against Palestinians

Photo by Afitab:

Lisbeth Latham

On July 21 Senator Penny Wong, issued a joint statement with 27 other foreign ministers, which stated that “the suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths. The Israeli government's aid delivery model is dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity.” This release has been followed by a series of statements by ALP ministers condemning the current actions of the State of Israel in Gaza. Given the extent to which these states have defended and facilitated the crimes of the State of Israel 20 October 2023, these statements have been met with significant public cynicism and anger. While this response is understandable, it misses the political moment that the joint statement represents, a moment where it may be possible to force action to end the crimes currently being committed against Palestinians in Gaza. To understand this moment, we must know why it has occurred, which has to do with shifts in international politics combined with broad popular opinion, rather than the pressure from the Palestinian solidarity movement.

The July 21 Statement is a response to two developments. The most important is the shift in global popular opinion against the State of Israel. This shift has been demonstrated repeatedly in opinion polls around the world, and is a core driver, along with the indefensible character of the IDF's actions in Gaza, of the increasingly desperate efforts to equate any criticism, or honest reporting, of the State of Israel’s actions as antisemitism. 

Adding to this pressure is that the Hague Group of countries, which was formed in January 2025, is calling for more concrete international action in solidarity with Palestine. Most notably, the Emergency Conference of States in Columbia in mid-July. This meeting, which 30 governments attended, resulted in a July 16 statement calling for states to:

• Prevent the provision or transfer of arms, munitions, military fuel, related military equipment, and dual-use items to Israel;
• Prevent the transit, docking, and servicing of vessels at any port in all cases where there is a clear risk of the vessel being used to carry arms, munitions, military fuel, related military equipment, and dual-use items to Israel;
• Prevent the carriage of arms, munitions, military fuel, related military equipment, and dual-use items to Israel on vessels bearing our flag and ensure full accountability, including de-flagging, for non-compliance with this prohibition;
• Commence an urgent review of all public contracts, to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian Territory and entrenching its unlawful presence;
• Comply with obligations to ensure accountability for the most serious crimes under international law, through robust, impartial and independent investigations and prosecutions at national or international levels, to ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes;
• Support universal jurisdiction mandates, as and where applicable in national legal frameworks and judiciaries, to ensure justice for victims of international crimes committed in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

With 12 nations, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and South Africa — committed to implementing the six measures immediately through their domestic legal and administrative systems to break the ties of complicity with Israel’s campaign of devastation in Palestine — and set a date of 20th September, to coincide with the 80th UN General Assembly, for additional states to join them.

These practical steps have created pressure for states such as Australia to follow suit, and so the purpose of the 21 July statement, which is devoid of commitments to concrete actions, should be seen primarily as a mechanism to distract from and reduce pressure to take concrete steps. As such, our response to the statement in general, or hand wringing statements by ministers that “the situation in Gaza has gone beyond the world’s worst fears.The position of the Australian Government is clear: every innocent life matters. Every Israeli. Every Palestinian”, should not be to complain that the statements weren’t made earlier, that they don’t go far enough, or that they empty words. Instead, we have to demand that those making the statements work to ensure that Israel is no longer able to starve, kill, or collectively punish Palestinians in any way. 

Adopting the actions called for July 16 would be an important start, however, while they bring pressure and will reduce the IDF’s ongoing capacity to terrorise the Palestinian population, they are not sufficient to address the pressing issue of concrete steps for the delivery and distribution of aid. Aid which is needed to halt the mass famine that has been created as a consequence of the Israel’s blocking and restricting of aid. This requires an ending of the limitations on the movement of aid, whether this interference is by the IDF, Israeli settlers, or other armed non-state actors. The last 22-months have definitely demonstrate that this cannot rely on the State of Israel to do the “right-thing”, but must be enforced by an UN-mandated protective force in Gaza. 

Such a force would require a mandate from the UN Security Council. As the US holds a veto on the Security Council that it has repeatedly used to stop or inhibit real action to support the Palestinians. Australia must pressure the US to not veto any action in support of Palestinians.

Action of this type will attract screams of outrage from numerous apologists for the crimes of the State of Israel - aimed at pressuring a return to normal acquiescence to these crimes. As such it is necessary at every step, while pointing out that more action is needed, for the movement to support each step in the right direction towards ending crimes against Palestinians.

This is an important opportunity to end the State of Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza. If the solidarity movement does not find ways to bring sufficient pressure to bear to achieve this, then we will have failed the Palestinian people in their most desperate hour of need.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.

Read more...

With an ALP victory likely: How can progressive forces fight for change?

Lisbeth Latham

In the wake of Trump’s victory, there was a strong sense that a similar victory for the Liberal/National coalition was in the offing. Over the past months, this fear has dissipated, not primarily due to the strong performance of the Albanese government, but due to the absolute failure of the Dutton-led opposition to posit a vision for a new government other than a cheap knock-off of Trumpism. While this outcome of an outright ALP majority government, or a minority government reliant on support of the Greens, Teals, and other independents, there are lessons that the left needs to learn to build pressure on any future ALP government, to deliver for working people.

The 2022 election of the Albanese government gave hope for change in Australia, particularly after the long years of Coalition government were made worse by the strain of the early years of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these hopes were likely misguided. Especially given that it is a social democratic government, but the ALP, along with the French Socialist Party, was one of the first social democratic parties to push and implement neo-liberalism. As such, it is unlikely that the Albanese government was going take the initiative to implement the broad social reforms, that had not been part of its platform, which forces to its left were calling for. Reforms such as raising social security payments or caps on rents. It also meant that it would be limited in its willingness to respond effectively, of its own accord, to the cost-of-living pressures that emerged, as capital took advantage of supply chain issues caused by restrictions of the early pandemic period, and other dislocations in the global economy, to justify massive price-gauging.

Despite this, the government has had a reform agenda, and while this agenda has been uneven, and internally contradictory, it has progressed on some of it. The government has been able to point to greater wage growth, albeit mostly at below inflation levels for much of its term, some of which is the consequence of amendments included in the Fair Work (Better Jobs Better Pay) Amendment Act (2022) and the Closing the Loophole Acts. The coalition has repeatedly promised to repeal these changes, particularly in relation to changes in the definition of casual employment, the right to disconnect, and the same job, same pay provisions that requires that labour hire workers to be paid at the same pay rates as the directly employed workers working on a project. At the tail end of the campaign, the coalition has walked back some of these threats, along with a range of other commitments.   

In other areas, such as the government’s failure to seriously raise opposition to Israel’s genocidal attacks on Palestinians, like the vast majority of Western imperialist governments. Along with its continued support for fossil fuels and erosion of environmental protections, it has alienated many in its own base and those to its left. 

In the wake of Trump’s victory, this alienation led to an assessment within sections of Australian progressive forces that the ALP government was making the same errors Biden and Harris had made in the US. As such, a Dutton victory was inevitable. However, since the election was called, the ALP has built and strengthened a lead in the two-party preferred polls. 

Source: Wikipedia

While this has come as a shock to some commentators, it reflects a continuation of the problem the coalition faced going into the 2022 election in orienting to far-right discourse, made worse by their promise to bring Trump-style politics to Australia. 

This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how Australian and US politics differ. 

A key factor is the impact of compulsory voting. In the US, the largest voting block in the November elections, where people who didn’t vote, leaving aside the millions of US citizens who the Republicans have actively sought to prevent from registering to vote. In Australia, abstentionism and informal voting is not nearly that high, at around 15%. This means that in general, although not always, to win, a party needs to build a two-party preferred vote of more than 50% of the electorate. Historically, the coalition parties have done this by having a broad electoral base and then appealing to undecided voters in the centre.   

As I pointed out in 2022, the Liberal Party, following the US Republicans, has sought to energise the party’s right wing. For decades, while that has caused discomfort and alienation within the Liberal party’s voting bloc, within what has been described as the wets or social liberal-fiscally conservative, it rarely caused a split. However, there was a glimpse of a split with Howard losing the “doctors’ wives’” vote in 2007. However, with the emergence of the Teal independents before the 2022 elections, it has opened up a division in the Liberal Party’s historic voting base, with a permission pathway to preferencing the ALP over the Liberals. The Liberals lost six seats to Teal independents. To win government, they not only need to pick up seats from the ALP, but need to rewin those Teal seats. The promise to intensify cultural wars is unlikely to appeal to this constituency, which could also put additional Liberal seats at risk. 

Moreover, Dutton and Liberal strategists have interpreted the results of the Voice referendum as demonstrating an opportunity to use cultural wars to expand the coalition’s electoral support. However, while the outcome clearly demonstrated the ongoing deep vein of racism in the Australian politics, the referendum outcome was a consequence of additional factors in the campaign, such as confusion around what the Voice would mean, the relationship between Voice, Sovereignty, and Treaty, and the simple decision pathway “if you don’t know, vote no”. These are factors that don’t apply in a general election. 

In addition, the promise of gaining electoral support by modelling the coalition’s policies on Trump has proved a significant miscalculation. This miscalculation is not just that Australian society and electoral system are fundamentally different from the US, which will always mean a direct transplant of framing and rhetoric is unlikely to gain the same traction. It also fundamentally misread how Trump’s policies, once unleashed, would play out and be received in the US, globally, and most importantly within Australia. In all of these places they have been deeply upopular, most notably Tariffs that pose a threat to economies, promoting and endorsing Trump, means endorsing those attacks, in Canada, where Trump’s rhetoric also includes discussion of annexation, it has created a clear division of those who will stand up for national interests and those who will grovel at Trump’s feet. While the Albanese government has not been as resolute as the Canadian Liberal Party in opposing Trump, in both countries contrast on the question of Trump has been a key in turning election fortunes. 

Given the ALP’s likely victory, in a context where that victory will be primarily based on a rejection of the coalition and its regressive vision, rather than a sharp reorientation of the Albanese government’s policy position, poses a question of how can progressive forces within Australia, move the ALP towards more progressive positions? Whether on housing, social security, climate action, or a position of pressuring, rather than enabling, Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza?

In the wake of the emergence of social media, the answer to that question has often been to post hot-takes about the failures and inadequacies of the ALP, and while they generate likes and reshares in our bubbles, it won’t move the ALP. What has worked, and will always work is the clear articulation of demands that set out how things should be different and how that can be achieved, then seeking to organise and mobilise around those demands-based purely around support for the demands, not on an agreed assessment of the world and its ills, or even assessment of the ALP. This approach is starting to articulate in the US with the increasingly regular nationwide anti-Trump rallies. Building ongoing, escalating actions around clearly defined demands will not only strengthen and build the confidence of the movement, but also it will shake the government's and its supporters' confidence, irrespective of how much they claim the actions are irrelevant, opening up divisions and making a shift in government policy possible. How sharp this shift will be depends entirely on the level of ongoing pressure that the movement can generate and build.

If the unthinkable happens and the coalition wins on May 3, this strategic approach will be even more vital.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.

Read more...