Where parties and candidates stand
The ECAJ surveyed ALP and Coalition on domestic and foreign policies impacting the Jewish community.
As we have done prior to previous federal elections, the ECAJ last month sent out a questionnaire to the ALP and the Coalition to gauge their policies on domestic and foreign policy issues of specific concern to the Jewish community. Both parties have now responded, and a comparative table of the questions and of their respective answers can be accessed on the ECAJ website.
An almost identical questionnaire was also sent to independent and minor party candidates, other than the Greens, in seats with high percentages of Jewish voters: Wentworth, Macnamara, Goldstein, Bradfield and Kingsford-Smith. The answers are being posted on the ECAJ website as they come in.
The responses, which are abbreviated here, are worth reading in full. Overall, they indicate that while there are some important areas of common ground, there are also some sharp differences.
Among Labor, the Coalition and key independents there remains unanimous opposition to the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel, as well as support for an eventual two-state solution that will exclude Hamas from power and for building peace on the basis of the Abraham Accords.
There is also a broad consensus (excluding the Greens) in support of the major legislative reforms that have already been enacted to defeat antisemitism, including anti-doxxing measures, bans on public displays of Nazi and terrorist symbols and gestures, outlawing of trade in Nazi memorabilia, the broadening of criminal sanctions against incitement or threats of violence against people because of their race, religion or other attributes, and mandatory minimum penalties for many of these offences. Teal independent Allegra Spender (Wentworth) would also criminalise the intentional promotion of hatred against people on the basis of their race, religion or other attributes.
There is broad, in-principle support for more focused school education against antisemitism in addition to Holocaust education.
No-one should underestimate the significance of these areas of common ground to the future wellbeing of our community. Neither should we be blind to the obvious policy differences that exist between the major parties, as these have been developing over the last 20 years or more.
Domestic policy
The Coalition has given a blanket commitment to adopt the ECAJ’s 15-point plan to defeat antisemitism, including forming a national taskforce to combat antisemitism.
Labor referred us to the letter from the Prime Minister on March 20 which listed the government’s achievements in legislative reform and funding for security and education but did not refer to the action plan.
Teal independent Nicolette Boele (Bradfield) supports forming a national taskforce. Her colleague Spender supports a “national coordinated approach” to combating antisemitism under parliamentary oversight.
The Coalition has made four further commitments which are not matched by Labor:
• The Coalition has promised that visa holders or applicants who engage in antisemitic conduct will have their visas rejected or cancelled so they can be deported or refused entry to Australia.
• Further, organisations affiliated with antisemitic views will not receive taxpayer funding from a Coalition government which will be equipped to screen for this conduct before grants or contracts are awarded.
• The Coalition has also promised to develop changes to the Australian Citizen Test to address the issue of antisemitism.
• The Coalition has flatly ruled out doing any deals with Greens.
Foreign policy
The Coalition has promised to restore Australia’s recognition of west Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and only to recognise a Palestinian State as an outcome of a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.
Labor will not recognise west Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, saying that the status of Jerusalem “should be resolved as part of peace negotiations and a two-state solution”, even though west Jerusalem constitutes part of Israel’s pre-1967 territory and not even the UN has called on Israel to withdraw from it.
Labor’s policy on west Jerusalem is inconsistent with its position that recognition of a Palestinian state need not await the outcome of peace negotiations. This position was first announced by Labor’s Foreign Minister last year, and is a departure from decades of bipartisan consensus that recognition of a Palestinian state should be an outcome of a negotiated peace agreement, and should not pre-empt such an agreement.
The Coalition has promised that Australia will revert to its mainly bipartisan positions on UN votes relating to Israel over the last 20 years, so as to oppose the UN’s traditional Israel-bashing. It would reverse Labor’s recent unilateral voting changes.
The Coalition has also promised to cease funding UNRWA, which has become tainted by its collaboration with Hamas, and to direct this funding instead to trusted organisations which deliver support to Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
Spender aligns with the Coalition on each of these foreign policy issues, including now opposing funding of UNRWA which she had previously supported.
Conclusion
There is a traditional canard that Labor and the Coalition are like Tweedledum and Tweedledee, offering voters no real choice. Yet when it comes to their policies on Israel and antisemitism, this is plainly untrue. For all voters who care about these issues, there are clear differences.
Peter Wertheim is the co-CEO of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.
comments