Why Australia sanctioned Israeli Ministers

ABC Listen, podcasts, radio, news, music, and more.

Hi, Jules and Jez here, and every week on Not Stupid, we unpack the news of the week.

I like to see when people change their minds because it makes me, just as a normal person, feel like I'm not the only one who exercises a degree of self-doubt every single day.

Self-doubt, it's a fine thing, that's our takeaway today.

You can find Not Stupid on the ABC Listen Up.

Australia has imposed sanctions on two of the most outspoken far-right ministers in Israel's Netanyahu government.

Australia joined allies to say that the two ministers have incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights.

Unsurprisingly, given how polarising this conflict has been, Foreign Minister Penny Wong is already facing backlash on the move.

And in other news, in an explosive resignation letter, Senator Dorinda Cox has accused her former party, the Greens, of a toxic culture and racism.

Welcome to Politics Now.

Hi, I'm Patricia Carvelis.

And I'm David Spears.

And David, Australia has, in a joint statement with the UK, New Zealand, Canada and Norway, so some significant allies and countries,

issued this Magninski-style sanctions against these two very significant Israeli ministers that are kind of really almost become household names now.

Penny Wong says the move indicated the level of concern Australia has about what is occurring, but it hasn't happened earlier and this conflict has been going on for some time.

How significant a shift is this?

This is significant, PK, and there's a few pieces worth unpacking here: what it means for our relationship with Israel, how we've worked with the other countries, the other four countries that have been involved in this joint move,

what it means in terms of our relationship with the Trump administration as well, which has been critical of this decision,

and what it means domestically.

And we can come to the politics here in Australia because we're recording this just gone midday.

It's 12 hours since the statement was issued from Penny Wong on this, and we have not yet heard a reaction from the coalition.

I think that's really quite interesting.

Not a formal response to this, put it that way.

And we'll come to those domestic politics post-election, the government doing this, really interesting.

But look, to start with,

what it's actually done here, you're right.

These are two far-right ministers, members of the Netanyahu government, Itamir Ben-Gavir and Basilel Smotridge.

We know they have been quite outspoken when it comes to both the West Bank and Gaza.

Ben-Gavir has been calling for the entire Palestinian population to be pushed out of Gaza.

There's a widespread view that these two figures in the Netanyahu government are clearly the most provocative on these issues.

And two weeks ago, Israel did announce plans to establish, I think it was 22 new settlements in the West Bank and legalise some that have already been built there.

We know the International Court of Justice last year found that these settlements were unlawful.

So look, this has been building for some time.

Australia has not done this alone and I don't think was ever going to do this alone.

This is unprecedented, as far as I'm aware, for Australia to impose sanctions like this on ministers of an elected government of which we have normal diplomatic ties.

We've done it, I think, with Russia, but I don't think you'd call that normal.

So I don't think we've been here before, but it's only done this in concert with, and this is the key, three of our other Five Eyes allies.

So four of the Five Eyes allies, that's Australia, Canada, UK and New Zealand, have done this with Australia, not the United States.

Norway is the other.

And the reason for that is they're quite influential when it comes to issues in the Middle East far more than we are.

The Oslo Peace Accords, people would have heard of, for example.

So that's significant in that regard.

But for Australia's part, to have those other Five Eyes allies, apart from the United States involved in this, was critical.

PK, I don't think we would have done this.

solo at all.

We definitely would not have gone it alone and haven't gone it alone, even though there has been an urging that we do take stronger action and you haven't seen that till this moment.

And so you mentioned that the opposition hasn't said much.

Okay, we're recording this now, they might say more later.

There was a few comments from Dan Tehan that sounded a little bit critical of the decision, but you're right, hedging, saying give us a briefing.

I think it's an uncomfortable territory for the coalition.

And one of the arguments they might land on is, well, they are a democracy.

Did you hear that line?

They're a democracy, and so we shouldn't be doing it to a democratic country.

It'll be interesting to see if they harden their position on this.

I think this does put them in an awkward position.

I'm not saying this was the intention, why the government did it, but I do think that is an effect here.

You're right, Dan Tian this morning on Radio National went with the we want a briefing on this, which is sort of not really criticising, but saying we want a briefing.

He also highlighted, though, the US criticism of this.

And the U.S.

criticism from Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State is that this is going to be unhelpful in terms of achieving peace as far as the US is concerned.

They believe these sanctions that these countries including Australia are imposed do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all the hostages home and end the war.

That's Rubio's view and the Trump administration view.

Dan Tian pointed to that but he didn't flat out oppose what the government's done here.

And privately, some in the coalition are

stressed privately saying that, yeah, these two guys, Ben Gavier and Smotridge

are pretty problematic

you know is the coalition at the end of the day going to side with them and side with Donald Trump on this this is the this is the awkward situation they're in this is not something they perhaps would have done but their reaction to it which we still haven't heard which I find interesting because it's a big story today we haven't heard from Susan Lee or Mikalia Cash the shadow minister shadow foreign minister you know are they going to oppose these sanctions or

support them?

Would you agree?

It's awkward for them.

Absolutely, it's awkward for them.

They have had a pretty strong line before the election on being a sort of fierce defender of Israel, regardless of the stories that had already been developing.

I know there are many people inside the coalition that believe that should

remain.

There's another awkwardness, though, which is Susan Lee and her own personal history on issues of

Palestine

and the things she said, which she's kind of walked back now because the coalition positions itself as being the best friend of Israel out of the two parties.

There has been a divergence on this issue in the wake of the war on Gaza.

And so there is now, I think, a break on that bipartisanship that we've seen.

But back to your point about these particular ministers, they are extremists.

The things they've said are absolutely unacceptable and alarming, right?

And so given that and the fact that the coalition, let's not forget, their formal position is for a two-state solution.

These ministers are not working towards a two-state solution.

There is absolutely no movement to a two-state solution.

That's off the cards, off the table, not in their rhetoric.

And this is something Penny Wong pointed to in her comments on this this morning.

She said, you know, two-state solution remains Australia's position, but not only does Hamas not want a two-state solution but she said regrettably it's clear the Netanyahu government rejects it as well it's clear she said from their devastating military campaign in Gaza and also clear from the policies including rampant settlement construction and violence in the West Bank now these sanctions are imposed because of what's been going on in the West Bank and what they've been saying these two guys about the West Bank but it's not in isolation from what's happening in Gaza was her point though they are clearly connected and the Australian view is that what these these two are doing and the Netanyahu government more broadly you know what did Penny Wong say these are the these are the extremists but there are still problematic elements in the Netanyahu government not just not just these two but this is moving us further away from that lasting piece of a two-state solution what they're doing

this is a fundamentally different view from the Trump administration which reckons applying sanctions in the way five countries now have on these two is going to make it harder to achieve peace.

Australia's view is it's these two who are making it harder to achieve peace.

Penny Wong will be criticised by the sort of really fierce pro-Israel lobby.

She already is, she will be.

But I got to say, given, as I say, UK, Norway, very significant countries have also done this, it's pretty difficult to mount that argument in the mainstream.

Australia doesn't look rogue here.

Australia doesn't look like it's front-running anything.

And even the tone used by Penny Wong, measured, calm, factual.

There's not overheated rhetoric on any of this.

No, and look, the officials I've spoken to here in Canberra and the remarks of Penny Wong, they're not going into who came up with this idea, who really drove the idea out of the countries that have signed this, but the words that were put to me was that Australia

with the UK helped build this.

And it was over some months.

So it's not playing down Australia's role that we're some late add-on to a list of countries that have done this, that we did help build this.

So read into that what you will.

I think it's also worth just touching on what it tells us about the Albanese government's relationship with the Trump administration in the US as well, because this is coming just ahead of an expected meeting between the two leaders on the sidelines of the G7 in Canada.

And clearly, the Trump administration is critical of what we, the UK and the others have done.

Obviously, it helps to be part of that broader group that includes four of the Five Eyes countries.

But I think it's another example, isn't it, PK, of Anthony Albanese being willing to be at odds with Donald Trump, to push back, to have some distance and difference from Donald Trump.

It is.

And the timing is

quite wild, actually.

I mean, the meeting's on Monday.

It's very close.

I think that the Prime Minister feels pretty confident going into that meeting.

Not to say that they don't think that Donald Trump's unpredictable and that he's not aware of all those risks, but electorally, he's just had this big victory.

He's not vulnerable in his own country at the moment.

And the opposition is barely functioning, really.

It's just starting.

It's in its infancy.

He doesn't have a very serious level of scrutiny on him right now.

Big majority.

He's not walking into that Trump meeting really worried.

That's just not the vibe.

And I think it was fascinating.

You know, we've seen it for a week or two, but particularly at the National Press Club yesterday, the Prime Minister willing to say no to the defence spending push from the Trump administration.

Peter Hegzeth said, you know, they want Australia to get to 3.5% of GDP.

And Albanese is essentially saying, look, we're open to increasing defence spending, but we're not going to be told what to do here.

And we're not going to set some arbitrary targets.

So he's pushing back on that.

On trade, he's not going to give Trump what he wants in dismantling the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, our biosecurity laws, the way we treat big tech.

Again, he's saying, you know, we've got an offer on the table for critical minerals, but beyond that, take it or leave it when it comes to trade.

And now in Israel, again, he's also at odds with the Trump administration about applying these sanctions on these two far-right members of the

Netanyahu government.

So on a number of fronts now, I think we're seeing evidence of Anthony Albanese being willing to stand up to and have some differences with Donald Trump.

And in fact, enjoying us all commenting on those differences.

I think that's probably right.

It's an important position for him to take and to make a signature issue for him over the next couple of years.

Donald Trump's around for his whole whole next term.

Don't forget that in terms of the timeframe.

In fact, they pretty much go to the next election, although Donald Trump's not meant to go to the next election, but who knows?

At the same time.

So, you know, they've got a long time to be coexisting on the national and the international stage together, and that's not going to be easy.

No, and look, just to note, too, that we're just days away from this expected meeting, but it's still an expected meeting because it still hasn't been locked in.

There's some doubt here in Canberra as to whether Trump even turns up at the G7 given all that's going on in the US right now.

But anyway, look, I still think he probably will and a meeting will happen.

But I think it's looking more on the short and sharp side than a lengthy sit-down dialogue between the two, but we will see.

Look, David, I want to move on to an entirely different story, but a really important conversation on a story that you had

on the ABC.

You've unearthed a pretty explosive resignation letter from WA Senator Dorinda Cox to her former party.

This comes just a week after she defected from the Greens to Labor, which is pretty unusual.

She's had lots of issues in the Greens, and now this letter is explosive.

Yeah, it sure is.

And a shout out to our colleague Jake Evans, who worked on this story as well.

Look, it's the resignation letter that we've obtained to the Greens from Dorinda Cox

a week and a bit since her departure to sit with Labor.

It is a bombshell letter.

It accuses the Greens of racism.

It says the Greens, I quote, failed her as its last First Nations MP and continues to fail First Nations people.

Dorinda Cox says, in my experience, the Greens tolerate a culture that permits violence against First Nations women within its structures.

In this respect, the party is deeply racist.

That's a very strong accusation from Senator Cox.

She refers to an alleged assault at Perth Airport by a Greens party member and suggests she was even advised by the party not to refer this to police.

These are disputed accounts, however.

The other person involved in that airport incident denies harassing or assaulting Senator Cox.

Senator Cox says she was the subject of unremitting campaign of bullying over 18 months, denies ever bullying others.

Again, this is disputed.

There are former staff members who do insist they were bullied at the hands of Senator Cox, and there's some dispute over whether matters were fully resolved when she's left the Greens or not.

But look, bottom line, PK, there is no love lost.

This is another moment of difficulty for the Greens.

And there have been a few of them that we've talked about over recent weeks since the election, right?

But clearly, Senator Dorinda Cox, she's now left, but is shining a big light on what she believes are some big problems still in that party.

Yeah, and it just...

demonstrates that this story has a long way to go, I think.

There is, you know, the Greens, I suspect,

will do some some perhaps counter leaking again.

Maybe, yeah, maybe.

A spokesman for the Greens says the claims are disappointing.

They're unrepresentative of the support that they reckon Senator Cox received.

They ignore substantive work undertaken by the party to find a resolution to complaints made both by and against Senator Cox.

So they're certainly of the view that there were complaints against Senator Cox.

Yeah, look, as I say, no love lost.

Maybe.

More is exposed.

I don't know if that would be in the Greens' best interest.

I think

to let this lie is probably a better course of action.

But you don't know what individuals in the, not just the senators here in Parliament, but party members who might have issues, what they're going to do.

Yeah, it's hard to know where this goes from here.

Yeah, it's not in their interest, but it didn't stop them leaking against her because what happens when you feel bruised and hurt is that sometimes you do dumb things that aren't in your interests in the long term because you think they might be because they might damage that person in the next little bit and that's politics it's full of it yeah it but it always comes back to bite you and that's what I think is happening with the Greens so I wouldn't be surprised if there'll be more activity there does show however the ongoing risks overall for the Prime Minister to recruit her

yes I'm sure this letter though and the arguments being made the Prime Minister would be happy to have ventilated out in the public which is again another sort of case being made about how the Greens are basically a bad party that he does not think

are very good at being left-wing and don't really do a very good job of representing progressive Australia.

And also, I think this charge against the Greens, that they're racist, is really damaging for the Greens.

So whatever people, you know, there's a lot of murk in all of this, a lot of claim and counterclaim, and a lot of people clearly unhappy.

But that is something that is a problematic narrative for them as a progressive party for that argument to be levelled at them, don't you think?

Oh, absolutely.

I mean, they can dispute it, deny it, reject it, and so on, but to have that sort of accusation made by a female Indigenous senator, sure, she's left the party, there are issues there, but She's not the first one to say something like this about the Greens.

And you're right, this is the party that's meant to be the most progressive, welcoming, the most anti-racist party, if you like.

So the very suggestion, the accusation, it's a serious one,

but yes, it's a damaging one.

Really damaging.

And so the Greens would be very nervous about that because it is a key credential of a progressive party to be, you know, really front and centre on these issues of First Nations.

People, they've lost both their Indigenous senators.

Now, Lydia Thorpe told me when I interviewed her, I think it was last week.

The weeks are...

coming fast and but yeah pretty sure it was last week that she thinks their circumstances are different.

And she really didn't put the boot too much into the Greens when it comes to being a racist party or these issues.

This is Lydia Thorpe, and talked up the black Greens, who are still members of the Greens and a caucus that are, you know, more radical in their politics.

We're pushing for things like not supporting a yes vote on the constitutional recognition question.

So there is a lot of

different views to the ones that Dorinda Cox has inside the Greens on some of these big signature issues for Indigenous affairs.

And that's at the heart of some of this too, I think, David, that there is a big dispute about how to take Aboriginal Australia forward.

Yeah, and look, we saw that play out, didn't we, in the lead-up to the voice and Lydia Thorpe's exit from the Greens.

Worth noting, there are big personal differences, too, between Lydia Thorpe and Dorinda Cox.

I think Lydia Thorpe is still alleging to have experienced bullying at the hands of Dorinda Cox as well.

So, yeah, there's no love lost between the two of them, but it is notable that their two Indigenous senators have both left for different reasons.

But it does, again, raise that question mark about what is going on within the Greens.

There will be more to come out.

It's a really big and vexed issue for the Greens.

So, you know, watch that space.

Hey, PK, before we go...

I feel like we can't leave out here the news that's developed over the last 24 hours, the disappointing news that Q ⁇ A

is coming to an end after, what is it, 18 years?

Yeah, that's right.

It's been a terrific show.

You've been fronting it for the, well, for the last little while and doing a terrific job.

And it's been such a part of our political landscape for such a long time that it is a sad day to see it go.

But I just wanted to say well done to you on steering that show in the period that you've been in the chair.

I had a few moments in the chair myself over the years and thoroughly enjoyed it.

But yeah, what are your reflections on that?

Yeah, David, it is a sad day and that show is,

I think,

so

unique.

It's the perfect word to describe what this show is, where you have Australians being able to front up and ask questions of powerful people.

Where does that happen very often, right?

And so...

I would like people to remember that that's been at the heart of this show.

And many people will have opinions of oh this was good and that was better it's all just noise the concept of democracy in a town hall i think was always a really powerful idea And so I'm really proud, actually, that I've got to host it over the last couple of years.

I know you feel the same way because you were hosting with Virginia and Stan for a while.

It's gone through many different phases.

I've been doing it since mid-2023.

Pretty proud of it and really thinking of my team today that I've been working very hard with because it is really difficult news.

Comes on the back, of course, of the project's decision to axe the project earlier this week.

So this is a really hard week for our industry and journalism.

And I just think that side of things should be really thought about too.

These forums for news and discussion.

So I hope...

you know, we can ensure that democracy still thrives in different ways and the ABCs will be exploring different ways for citizens to be involved in that.

Yeah, and look, I'll be very interested to to see what new ideas come forward now.

But you're right to reflect on the fact this is a difficult week for journalism and television shows like the project and Q ⁇ A.

But I think you're also, you know, and my thoughts absolutely with all of the staff involved in both of those programs.

But you're also right, I think, PK, to reflect on the wonderful moments that Q ⁇ A certainly produced over the years.

Some really serious news, hard news moments, but also some hilarious moments, some unpredictable moments.

I mean, you know what it's like being in that chair.

It's a wild ride at times.

You never know quite what's going to happen.

And yeah, there was a lot of fun in being part of that.

So well done to everyone involved in Q ⁇ A.

Yeah, to you too.

And to, of course, the previous teams and all of the different versions of the show.

Been on air for a long time.

So that means...

Jenny Jones and

Peter McAvoy, well done to you.

But, you know, these things come to an end.

Yep.

And journalism, though, broadly must continue.

And so, you know, I really believe that we need to be doing journalism in all of its different forms.

And, you know, look at us here.

When we started in journalism, podcasts like this weren't around, David.

So things have changed, and I'm really glad to be able to look for you.

Exactly, exactly.

We'll keep doing it.

That's it for politics now today.

David, thank you.

Thanks, Pico.

Tomorrow, Fran and I will bring you the party room and Charles Croucher from Channel 9 will join us.

If you want to send a question, thepartyroom at abc.net.au is where you do it, and we'll try and answer it.

See ya.