Australia is facing growing criticism internationally and at home for its decision not to impose sanctions on Israel during the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The situation in Gaza has worsened due to Israel’s blockade, which limits essential aid and has triggered severe hardship for civilians. While countries like the UK, France, and Canada have introduced targeted sanctions in response, Australia has chosen a different path, opting not to follow suit.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said that Australia will pursue its own foreign policy approach and will not join calls for sanctions against Israel. This stance contrasts with Australia’s history of imposing sanctions on countries like Russia and condemning military regimes such as Myanmar’s junta. The government’s reluctance to sanction Israel has raised questions about its consistency in upholding human rights principles.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong has emphasized that Australia does not act on speculation when it comes to sanctions. However, political considerations and alliance management appear to play a significant role in this decision. Many observers say that this selective approach is damaging Australia’s credibility as a middle power that supports a rules-based international order.
Domestically, Australia is navigating complex pressures from both Jewish and Palestinian communities, each with strong social and political influence. The government’s neutral stance seems aimed at balancing these interests but has resulted in increased polarization among the public. Young Australians, in particular, have expressed dissatisfaction with the government’s position through protests and petitions.
Australia continues to export military and dual-use technology to Israel despite the risk that these could be used in human rights violations. International law, including the Arms Trade Treaty, prohibits arms sales when there is a significant risk of abuse. By not halting these exports, Australia risks being seen as complicit both morally and legally, especially as international investigations into the Gaza conflict advance.
Some argue that Australia’s hesitation is tied to its strategic relationship with the United States. However, other US allies such as Canada and the UK have taken principled stands without harming their ties with Washington. Australia’s reliance on the US for foreign policy direction raises concerns about its ability to act independently based on its own values.
Even if full sanctions are politically difficult, there are alternative actions Australia could take. These include suspending military cooperation and intelligence sharing with Israel, supporting international investigations, imposing visa bans on human rights abusers, and increasing humanitarian aid through organizations like the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
Australia’s current position is increasingly seen as a failure to uphold its moral responsibilities. This approach could harm its standing in the Asia-Pacific region, where historical grievances and calls for justice remain strong. If Australia wants to maintain its influence and reputation as a principled global actor, it must align its policies with its stated commitment to human rights.
