In early October, Britain’s justice secretary and deputy prime minister David Lammy was booed and jeered when he attended a vigil for victims of an attack on a Manchester synagogue the day before. One British Jew had been murdered and police, in the confusion, had shot and killed another, as well as the terrorist.
Many in attendance accused Lammy and his Labour colleagues of culpability: by allowing antisemitism to flourish since 7 October 2023; for their criticisms of Israel’s war in Gaza; and, most importantly, for recognising Palestine less than two weeks earlier. (Lammy was foreign secretary when the intention to recognise was announced.) A lot of media punditry agreed.
The toll in our Bondi mass murder on Sunday is many times higher, the evil more profound, but the dynamic of the relationship between our Labor government and the Jewish community is similar. The majority of Australian Jews seem to have viewed the government’s statements and actions on Israel over the last two and a bit years as betrayals. Much of the criticism over that time, most inevitably via News Corp, has at least mentioned the foreign policy decisions, with some seeming to share the Israeli prime minister’s belief that any criticism of the country is antisemitic, or at least “rewards Hamas” and encourages antisemitism at home. This, at core, seems to be the government’s major crime in the eyes of most accusers.
Glibly talking about “eradicating antisemitism,” as many including Anthony Albanese have done this week, doesn’t make it any easier to achieve. But governments can always do something, and that includes setting an example.
As many have pointed out, when Albanese and his ministers have been asked about antisemitism over the past two years they have trotted out a rote reply: yes, it must be condemned — as should other forms of discrimination including Islamophobia. This coupling has diluted the nature and importance of antisemitism and the Holocaust’s sheer number of victims.
The context is complicated by the fact that the federal opposition, particularly under Peter Dutton, has seen political advantage in the issue, as the number of exchanges in question time shows.
The government would claim it’s just been trying to lower the temperature, especially as some of its electorates include large Muslim majorities. The extent to which this concern morphed into crude electoral considerations before May’s expected close election — specifically the fear of losing seats to single issue pro-Palestinian candidates, as its British counterpart did last year — might be in the eye of the beholder.
Still, even this week, Albanese’s sloganeering seems a bit off. “Terrorists want to divide us, we must not let them” is a clunky response appropriate to urging people not to take out their anger on the Muslim community after an act of Islamist terror. Sunday was certainly in that broad category, but the specificity of the targets — one of the killers was shooing bystanders away — makes it different. The fiercest anger Albanese is trying to contain is directed at himself.
Some political leaders appear able to draw on a deep moral well, at least in public. Kim Beazley, who never became prime minister, was one. Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull as well. Not so Anthony Albanese: displaying sincerity, real or faked, is not his forte. It’s not clear where this deficit comes from — decades of internal party skulduggery, perhaps — but when he’s being interviewed he’s always just managing the situation, resorting to talking points, staying out of trouble.
That habit of extending sentences with an unnecessary phrase — “at this time,” “in this place,” “going forward” — presumably to give himself space to prepare for the next line, doesn’t make for great oratory. By keeping attention on the other side, the small-target persona obviously worked at both elections he has contested as leader. But it makes for a poor ethicist-in-chief and, after Sunday, mourner-in-chief.
(There was a time when our head of state’s representative might have taken up some slack. Should governor-general Sam Mostyn be more active, or is she tainted by association with the Labor government?)
So Sunday’s mass murders have been followed by a lot of criticism of Albanese, what he’s failed to do and is still failing to do. Much commentary is light-on in pinpointing exactly what he’s done wrong, apart from his handling of Israel, or what he should do now. One on Thursday, headlined “Albanese Has a Moment in History to Do Something Big. He’s Wasting It,” ends up barking just two orders: “confront antisemitism wherever it ferments” (yes, this week apparently) and accept all the recommendations in special antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal’s contentious “Plan to Combat Antisemitism” right now.
Among the assorted litter elsewhere are some meaningful contributions. ASIO should be funded to upgrade its technology: it beggars belief that no automated red light went on when the older shooter’s gun licence was approved, given his son had come to ASIO’s attention.
Call out Labor people like Bob Carr, who seems to take mischievous delight in deliberately using “Jewish” rather than “Israel” when describing its “lobbies.” Get serious about preachers of hate in mosques: an old chestnut that’s obviously easier said than done without draconian laws but still worth pursuing. Screen immigrants more thoroughly. Action on most of these fronts was announced on Thursday.
The government can also talk about antisemitism with less equivocation. But any outreach to the Jewish community will be difficult, of course, given the animosity.
Why, in the last four days, is NSW premier Chris Minns spared the sort of opprobrium poured on Albanese when the atrocity, and the constant threat for Sydney’s Jews over two years, took place on his watch and in spite of his government’s law enforcement apparatus? Partly because he has been more forceful in condemning antisemitism without caveats. He also possesses a larger dollop of those public-speaking attributes mentioned above.
And generally he’s been relatively pro-Israel. Most importantly, of course, state governments don’t have foreign affairs responsibilities.
Israel’s prime minister has been doing what he can this week to keep Australian divisions rife. This being Benjamin Netanyahu, we can assume he believes it is in his personal, as opposed to his country’s, interest. •
