Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.<\/p>\n
Buffeted by gale-force winds to her political right and left, Penny Wong\u2019s ability to navigate Australia through the tumultuous waters of Israel\u2019s war with Hamas is being strained to the limit.<\/p>\n
The Israel-Gaza conflict is the ultimate high-risk, low-reward issue for Wong: Australia has little ability to influence events in the Middle East, but any slip-up in official language risks inflaming domestic tensions and inflicting political damage on the government.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Israel-Palestine conflict is the ultimate high-risk, low-reward issue for Foreign Minister Penny Wong.<\/span>Credit: <\/span>Alex Ellinghausen<\/cite><\/p>\n After all, it was Israel-Palestine policy that saw Wong make one of the few major blunders of her tenure as foreign minister: last year\u2019s bungled handling of the otherwise sensible decision to no longer recognise West Jerusalem as Israel\u2019s capital.<\/p>\n Pro-Israel groups were also unhappy earlier this year when the government announced it would refer to Israel\u2019s settlements in the West Bank as \u201cillegal\u201d and the Palestinian territories as \u201coccupied\u201d.<\/p>\n A skilled political communicator, Wong has so far played an astute role in steering Australia\u2019s response to the October 7 massacre and Israel\u2019s subsequent war against Hamas.<\/p>\n While the Coalition, which is resolutely pro-Israel, blasted her for asking the Netanyahu government to exercise restraint in the immediate aftermath of Hamas\u2019 attack, it was entirely sensible for her to want to minimise civilian casualties in Gaza. Similarly, she has backed Israel\u2019s right to defend itself against terrorism, rejecting the Greens\u2019 simplistic calls for an immediate ceasefire.<\/p>\n Wong hardened her language on Sunday by calling for Israel to \u201ctake the next steps towards a ceasefire\u201d in Gaza, going further than either her United States or United Kingdom counterparts have so far. Her comments were typically nuanced \u2013 she noted that a ceasefire cannot be \u201cone\u2011sided\u201d \u2013 but nuance is risky if it morphs into ambiguity and confusion.<\/p>\n Viewed from one angle, Wong\u2019s comments are entirely uncontroversial: everyone wants the fighting to in Gaza to end.<\/p>\n Jewish community leaders, however, said they were \u201chighly concerned\u201d by Wong\u2019s remarks, declaring: \u201cAny ceasefire that does not involve the return of the hostages and the removal of Hamas from power will only entrench Hamas and embolden Israel\u2019s other genocidal enemies, like Hezbollah. It will guarantee more war and human suffering for all.\u201d<\/p>\n A senior figure in Labor\u2019s left faction, Wong has championed the cause of Palestinian statehood at successive Labor Party policy conferences, which helps explain why the Jewish community leaders have not given her the benefit of the doubt on this issue.<\/p>\n The problem with the term \u201cceasefire\u201d is that it both highly charged and vague: it is often unclear what those demanding one are actually asking for beyond the naive, if understandable, desire for the war in Gaza to stop.<\/p>\n The Israeli government has made clear that it will keep fighting until Hamas no longer controls Gaza and no longer poses a national security risk to Israel. Both those goals are far from being achieved – as is the aim to secure the release of most, if not all, of those who were abducted on October 7 and taken hostage by Hamas.<\/p>\n French President Emmanuel Macron – who questionably fancies himself as a global peacemaker – is just the latest world leader to call for a ceasefire without explaining how it can be achieved while neutralising the threat of Hamas.<\/p>\n Calling for Israel to slow down, to show more restraint in its bombing campaign and to allow more humanitarian pauses are specific, realistic requests. Demanding that it stop its military campaign before it has achieved its legitimate objectives is not.<\/p>\n