Albanese sharpens criticism of the Israeli government

ABC Listen.

Podcasts, radio, news, music, and more.

It all starts with a bizarre customer service experience.

We started to have problems.

As outrage ripples across YouTube, an army of vigilantes is spurred into action.

The one thing you cannot do is try to get somebody's video taken down.

But the stakes are higher than anyone anticipates.

Soon, reputations will crumble as the feud takes on a life of its

Beef, hear the final Showdown Now on background briefing, free on the ABC Listen app.

The Prime Minister has sharpened his criticism of the Israeli government as pressure builds for the global community to do more to address the horrific levels of starvation in Gaza.

Israel has announced a daily pause in fighting and limited food drops, but aid organisations say the situation on the ground is still dire.

Now, Anthony Albanese has said Israel is quite clearly breaching international law by withholding aid from civilians in the territory.

It is an escalation in the language he's used.

But the Prime Minister also says he has no immediate plans to recognise a Palestinian state.

He doesn't want to follow what the French have done.

Welcome to Politics Now.

Hi, I'm Patricia Carvellis.

And I'm Jacob Greber.

And Jacob, the second sitting week of the new parliamentary term has begun, although some of the themes are very familiar to and similar to last week's.

One issue though that I do think is progressing in a significant way is the response on Gaza.

So on Insiders on the weekend, we saw the Prime Minister use, I think, even the strongest language he's used.

It certainly began, just to give it some context, with that statement that Australia signed with all those countries earlier last week.

And then on Friday, after the French announcement and after front pages across the world, even in Conservative papers, printed horrifying images of children starving to death,

then the Prime Minister put out a statement.

It was a really strong statement.

Then on...

with Spears, our colleague, he really used very strong language, saying it was completely indefensible, what's happening, putting the onus on the Israeli government.

What did you make of the Prime Minister's comments and his still his resistance to saying yes to a Palestinian state yet because the preconditions haven't been met?

I think he's moving in that direction.

I think that feels pretty clear at this point in time.

He's got one eye, PK, firmly on

his September visit to the United Nations in New York.

That's a very likely trip.

Hasn't been officially announced, but expectations are very high.

And I don't think it would be a surprise to anyone that this issue of Gaza, the humanitarian crisis, and what happens next will be a central point of that UN meeting.

Australia will be part of a very, very big global discussion at that point in time.

So he's got his eye on that, Pikachu.

And I think he's also got his eye on his own party room.

The views in there have hardened about Israel,

what Israel is,

its involvement in this crisis.

He's still using the language that he's used all the way along of condemning Hamas and saying Hamas has no role in a future arrangement, whatever that ends up looking like, whether it is Palestinian recognition or not.

The big change though, and this is a change that will be noticed in Israel, is that he is countenancing this kind of debate.

He's not shutting it down.

He's very open about the possibility of this being a thing that could happen.

I don't know what you think, Pikachu.

He's leaving this door wide open, in my view.

Absolutely my view, too.

And in fact, some of the write-ups were, you know, shut the door.

Well, no, he poured a bit of cold water on that the decision had been made.

So that's true.

It hasn't.

And, you know, there's a few reasons for that.

But he is keeping the door open.

And there's a reason for that, too.

It's not just pressure from the backbench, although let's get back to that because I think that's part of the story.

It's also a case of,

you know, how you want to put pressure on Israel, how to do that.

And one way to do that is to accelerate calls for a Palestinian state and the international community to galvanise around it, to provide hope to the Palestinian people who I can't see how

these people are kind of

able to function at all, actually.

It's a miracle that there's any ability to even have a dialogue still, given what they've gone through in the last, well, the last two years, but the last couple of months particularly.

Now, walking that line of holding Hamas to account for its atrocities, which are indisputable, and can we just never forget, I think sometimes it's forgotten in this conversation, that Hamas oppresses its own people.

Palestinians who have stood up and tried to resist Hamas even in recent months, they come down on them like a ton of bricks.

So the Palestinians are the victims here of Israel and of Hamas.

And at some point, there has to be a reckoning of does a child starving need to be the victim because Hamas is not behaving as they should.

Of course they're not behaving as they should.

Yes, they are not trustworthy partners.

Absolutely correct when people make those points about Hamas.

A listed terrorist organization, absolutely correct.

But does a one-year-old, two-year-old, toddler, whatever, deserve to suffer the ramifications of bad actors?

And there are bad actors everywhere here?

Well, no.

The international community says no.

They should not be the victim of the bad actors.

And I think what we're seeing in Gaza unfold is actually generationally shape-shifting, and I'll explain.

Seared in my memories from the 80s is Ethiopia, right?

Because I was little then.

You would remember too as a Gen Xer.

That was seared in our memories, right?

Now we have a man-made disaster where the same sorts of images of starving children that are visceral in our reaction to it.

People would say, well, why wasn't, and I reckon I'm hearing you yell at your radio,

at your stream, say, well, why wasn't it visceral when the bombing happened?

Yeah, that was absolutely visceral for many people too, but there is something psychologically about seeing a child skeletal like that, which presses buttons in a way that you can never describe.

And that's what's happening.

So the Prime Minister, I think, is opening the door, will potentially, I'm just going to put it out there, vote for statehood in September, potentially.

Now, you'd have to say, if you're a betting person, not yet.

But this is a, you're on notice.

What will happen in the UK?

Will they shift?

Can I say there?

The backbench is even more feisty under the Starma government.

So things are shifting quickly.

Yeah, and he used the language, it's not imminent.

It's not an imminent decision that he's making.

I mean, what's beyond imminent?

So it won't be today, Piko, but what about next month?

What about in September?

Exactly.

You know,

we can argue the nuance around that sort of a word, but I think it leaves it wide open.

I think he is talking to people like Keir Starmer.

He'd be talking to the Canadians and the New Zealanders as well.

My gut feel is the Prime Minister wants to do it with the cover or, I guess the support of a group of countries doing it.

He's not willing to do what Emmanuel Macron has done and go out alone as the first G7 country to make a big statement.

And of course the Prime Minister's copying some heat for that.

Bob Carr this morning on our colleague's radio show are in breakfast essentially saying Australia should be out front here as a middle power.

Well I have to get in here and see.

He said that on Friday on afternoon briefing.

I apologise for missing your show on Friday.

I don't know what I was doing, but I should have been watching.

I had to, because I was right on to where is the pressure coming from.

And it was important to get those views on the record.

Ed Husick also said, join France.

Now, he was a minister on the back bench.

He represents a view.

throwing back to you, Jacob.

Like it represents a strong view.

It's a strong view.

And we've seen,

I've forgotten the exact number, but isn't there

some very large number of Labor branches that have all passed motions in the last week or so on this issue.

So the grassroots in the Labor Party is very exercised by this.

And I go back to my point.

That's what the Prime Minister's thinking about when he's managing this.

It's always about politics and it's about politics in his own party as much as it is beyond.

But I do think, Pika,

notwithstanding what Husick and Bob Carr have said, I can't see him going alone on this.

No.

And so they want him to front run, like to go ahead that's not been the way they've handled this issue they've joined with partners and the uk is key my view though is if keir starmer shifts and i i make the point about his backbench because his backbench are more feisty right now now Parts of our backbench are getting more feisty, but they're not quite there.

I mean, I've spoken to a few MPs who say, Locke, we've got a pretty well-behaving backbench right now.

And I think that's true.

I think they're

playing within the rules rules and there's a lot of discipline in life

that that backbench is

they are choir boys and choir girls yeah that's what I'm saying they are so loyal to whatever this PM does and says and especially the new ones he has them completely whipped into shape like there is no dissent there isn't they half of them owe their existence in this parliament in their minds and in reality to this Prime Minister.

There is no dissent.

That's all on the other side.

That's all in the other parties.

Yeah, and that's why, and we're going to get to the other party now because it's important, but that's why I think Ed Husick's doing a lot of the heavy lifting on this because,

you know, there's a feeling from him, I suspect, that, you know, he's got nothing to lose.

They've already demoted him, haven't they, through the factual willing and dealing?

I mean, he'd like to come back, but look how enormous that,

you know, the numbers are in Labour.

You wouldn't put a lot of money on it.

Oh, good luck, right?

So he's going out on this, but he's doing a lot of it on his own.

But, but, that's not to say his view is not shared strongly by many.

And so what you've got here, too, is not just the left who have the numbers who do believe in statehood, it's very much what they believe.

But actually what's missed, I think, sometimes is that, you know, the New South Wales right doesn't have the sort of strength of support for Israel that it used to either, Jacob.

So there has been a broader shift in the Labour Party.

If you think about people like Tony Burke, Jason Clare, like there's been a big shift.

They're not big outfront defenders of Israel in the way that Bob Hawke was when he was leader of the Labour Party.

I think he said there is no greater friend.

He had some language like that.

But Israel's changed.

The generations have changed.

Everything has changed.

What do you make of the opposition's handling of this?

I mean, we've seen Michalia Cash last week defending Israel and we've seen Dan Tian,

who doesn't actually have any kind of portfolio responsibility for this topic, but he was on Radio National and was asked about it and said that Hamas is the sole responsible responsible actor here for this humanitarian crisis and talked about Hamas continuing to weaponize the use of aid.

And I thought there was good pushback from our colleague Sally Sarah here who said, well, look, there are many, many examples of aid going into places where there are bad actors.

And South Sudan, Afghanistan are examples.

And does that mean we just don't do it at all?

And I think this is becoming a really awkward discussion, given the images coming out.

I know what you think, but is that a

where does that lead the Liberal Party, do you think?

The Liberal Party broadly, because there are some individuals, including perhaps the leader, if you look at her previous comments on Palestine, but broadly, has not shifted at all.

And they talk as if it's still literally the date of October the 7th.

Now, October the 7th did start this latest outbreak.

And I say latest, because, of course, the Israel-Palestine conflict is long and has many dimensions and is deep.

And everyone acknowledges that.

But I think when the Prime Minister says, you know, October 7th started this phase that is actually factually correct but the disproportionate and lengthy response from israel and some of the measures including of course the starvation we've seen is beyond the comprehension of anyone including many people in israel right now by the way right and jews around the world too like lots of people concerned about it so you say you know what's going on for the coalition i think the coalition i've got their head in the sand um Is it right to blame Hamas partly?

Sure.

Of course.

But the fact that they can't countenance any responsibility here for the Israeli state, for the Netanyahu government, to me is breathtaking, really.

Also,

look at some of the deeper, I just want to make this one point and then ask you actually what you think of it, because this is a really big thing I've been thinking about all weekend, like at a deeper level.

Generationally, I go on about this, the searing images for people my kids' age, your kids' age, people in their 20s.

Not people who are just really, you know, politicised and militant.

I mean just anyone on social media who see these images.

The Liberal Party wants to be relevant.

I keep hearing Susan Lee go on podcasts talking to young people.

If you want to be relevant to young people, denouncing the starvation of children might be a good start.

And I find that there's a real disconnect here between trying to understand where the world is at and where they stand at.

Of course, you can denounce a terrorist organisation while still saying aid is too important, we've got to find a way.

And I don't know if they've got that balance right.

There does appear to be a reluctance to criticise Israel in any way by the Liberals and I think they still view it in terms of a what Israel is doing and what people in the Netanyahu government will say they are doing is really the first

the first line of a broader war.

That's how they see it and that's how they portray it.

And so I think the Liberal Party is still very much in that mindset that

this is a civilizational contest.

Israel's doing our dirty work for it.

And

you do hear people in European countries say that out loud, including the German Chancellor, that Israel's dirty work in the sense of this unpleasant stuff of taking on an enemy like Hamas.

That's where the disconnect comes in.

And I think just the other observation I'd make, PK, is

the government here is also reflecting some of that in its language.

And one of the reasons it hasn't raced out to copy what Emmanuel Macron has done is what Penny Wong has been saying, which is there are still hurdles that need to be overcome before you have Palestinian recognition, including demilitarization of Hamas, hostages released,

being two of the things she's mentioned.

So there's a way to go here.

because Israel's still trying to get to complete destruction, complete elimination of Hamas.

And

how far down that road do they go?

Well,

they have not articulated a day after

vision still.

No, and we're, what, getting towards three years now, aren't we?

Yeah, the end of this year.

Yeah, it's a long, long war by October, three years in.

What happens next?

Israel has dismantled Hezbollah.

It's put Iran firmly on its back foot.

It has destroyed most of Hamas to the point that you see reports where it's actually difficult for them to negotiate with Hamas because the leadership's so degraded.

Who are they?

And they say that it's all to make themselves safer.

That was the cause.

Which is a totally legitimate point.

Yeah.

But does it make you safer to

do that to a population?

We have heard the radicalisation experts make the warnings about what this does to a generation.

And that's what I think people should rightly be thinking about for the future as well.

You know, does it make you safer?

Can you bomb your way to safety?

If you look at history, that is not the way to achieve it at this stage.

And I think that's one of the lasting issues here too.

Look, we've talked about the divisions in the Labour Party regarding Gaza, but there are obviously

really big divisions right now in the coalition.

Week two, here we go.

Oh, my goodness.

Still, net zero.

We've got more.

We've got more net zero talk.

Yeah, I mean, to me, this just feels like a rehash of last week's argument coming from Barnaby Joyce.

Michael McCormack, Matt Canavan, Colin Boyce, they stood out the front of Parliament this morning with their Liberal colleague, Garth Hamilton, and, you know, argued against net zero.

And as I've said elsewhere, I just

don't think anyone's standing there screaming at the National Party to come clean on its net zero position in the here and there.

We demand you tell us.

You must come clean.

You know,

this is intolerable, this uncertainty.

I mean, just in a political sense, I don't think anyone's asking for that.

Susan Lee and David Littleproud have tried to manage this issue by putting in a process where they look at it, they debate it internally,

and then end up with a position later this year, which is still two years out from the next election for a target, by the way, which is in the middle of the century.

So it's a very strange priority in the here and now.

And I guess their argument would be, the Barnaby Joyce argument would be, is this is driving up costs for everybody that we're going down this path uh except that people actually voted the government back in with a thumping majority uh in part to deliver this very project am i i mean or or did i miss something did i miss something in the election you didn't miss anything uh and again week two um for the coalition in the parliament i'm about to begin we're recording this before question time today but you know we'll give you some question time flavours throughout the week

can i also quickly

it is remarkable and it's just occurred to me i've had a bunch of conversations with nationals about this topic over the last week and there is a group that sits there scratching their heads i mean they all see it in terms of the leadership of Dave a little proud he is under pressure he is on shaky ground here he's watching to see what that very very small party room does on this issue trying to sniff that breeze but there are nationals who will admit to you in private at least that if

I mean most Australians probably don't understand what net zero by 2050, what that policy actually is, what it means.

And this is a Nationals person telling me this, when they hear that the Nationals are opposed to net zero, what they hear is

the National Party is opposed to the environment.

It's a proxy.

Interesting, this person didn't say opposed to climate policy.

They're opposed to the environment.

The connection goes down a layer to the environment.

And this is the big problem, the big challenge for the Nationals, frankly, the Liberals as well.

And I know that they think, oh, in our electorates, this is really big.

Yeah, there are some places where it's huge and people are very worried about the renewables rollout.

100% correct, right?

But, you know, there are demographic shifts in some of those Nationals' electorates.

We've seen this disruption since COVID.

Like, the demographic freight train comes for everyone, I reckon.

And so, you know, watch this space.

They're always like, we didn't lose any of our seats.

Are you saying that the five blokes

who like me have age of a, you know, hair of a certain color,

you know, physiques of a certain shape, are not representative of the whole nation at this point?

Very fit.

You're always on your bike.

You don't have the problem.

Look, I saw the picture.

And for anyone listening, because, you know, we're a podcast, go look at that picture.

There's a picture of them all standing.

with that net zero announcement.

And it's, I do wonder,

did they not workshop what that might look like?

Or perhaps, because it's just blokes.

But then I think maybe they did and they don't care.

No, I don't think they care.

I actually don't think they care on that front.

You think it's a don't care?

No, I don't think they care.

I think they are in the

protest business now rather than how to appeal to a broad range of Australians.

Where does that lead?

Where does the protest era of your life lead?

I don't know.

We'll find out.

Look, all while this is happening, it's worth mentioning, right, that say case of the Nats, oh, net zero again, week two, Susan Lee going into the Parliament, being given feedback, I can tell you, oh, we're a bit lackluster, we need to look like we've got more energy, so let's see if they can muster that up.

I think a few, even on the Liberal side, were telling me, hmm, don't know how we looked last week, okay?

So, and that's not just on Susan Lee, by the way, that's her whole team.

Like, what's going on, guys?

Wake up, okay?

And then the Albanese government today will introduce legislation to cap the price of medication under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme at $25 in the second sitting week of parliament.

I reckon you just look at that contrast back to sort of why the government, why they all listen to Albanese.

You know, we're delivering cheaper medicines this week.

No, they're doing all this.

We're giving you less hex debt.

It's all cost of living.

We're delivering a lot of lessons learnt from the first term.

And this is where he wants to be.

This is the ground he wants to be on, Jacob.

Yep, and

it's all about demonstrating here we are doing the things we said we'd do.

The surprise to me is that the Coalition isn't seeing an opportunity in some of this stuff.

The promise to build 1.2 million houses, we now know Treasuries told government that's essentially completely unrealistic.

The promise that you would only ever have to walk into a Medicare clinic with your Medicare card.

I mean, most of us live in cities where that's just laughable.

You always have to pay, but the government's promising you won't.

There are people questioning that the in the world that understands this.

There are doctors saying they're not going to wear it.

So there are big, what I'm saying is there are big, big problems in some of the government's agenda.

You won't hear much about those problems from the opposition at this point because they're not really focused on it.

Look, it's the end of our podcast.

We've got a lot to do and of course question time is coming up.

But I do want to say watch this space.

People will listen and then you'll look it up.

There's a very significant speech being given, you know, all the first speeches are being given.

I'm not going to call them the other word, you know, don't want to be schooled about my sexism from Jacob.

Still recovering from that.

There's a guy who was elected for Labour among many people who are elected.

You know, it was a close count, actually, and he's giving his first speech at around 5 p.m.

today on a Monday that we're recording this.

He is the first ever son of Palestinian refugees.

who won the seat.

It was always a Labour seat, but it became very competitive of Caldwell in the western suburbs of Melbourne.

I think I I was born in that electorate.

Took over from Maria Van Vackenu.

So, you know, the first Palestinian background MP to deliver a speech, listen to that speech is all I'm saying.

If you had a little taste of it.

I haven't received the actual transcript or I'd be reading it, wouldn't I, if I got authorisation?

But it's going to be a very good speech.

And isn't it interesting that he's got the seat named after Arthur Caldwell?

Go and Google that, too.

But you look at the diversity, though.

The diversity story, yeah?

Yeah.

Palestinian refugees, about to give it, you know, so the diversity on the labor side, unmatched.

There's such a big project for the lips to just even catch up to some of this.

Jacob, we're out of time,

but I'm never out of time for you, actually.

I will speak to you again.

Have a great day.

You too.

Can't wait for that speech and good luck with the rest of the week.

Not maiden.

Not maiden.

And we're back.

There are no maidens.

No maidens.

Back in your feed tomorrow with another episode of Politics.

Now, catch you then.

Thanks, Jacob.

See ya.

Bye.