The Election Down Under
Aussie candidates differ on much, but not on Israel
The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne, Jr., had a must-read yesterday for all the political junkies out there, about how Australia’s forthcoming elections could resonate halfway around the world in America. Labor Party Prime Minister Julia Gillard—Dionne’s surrogate for President Obama and the Democrats—is pushing a message of “moving forward” versus “going back,” while opposition leader Tony Abbott, the conservative, wants to tar Labor as the party of high taxes and high debt.
But there is at least one issue on which Gillard and Abbott share a viewpoint, in defiance, at least in Gillard’s case, of their party-lines: They are both unusually strong supporters of Israel.
Last month, some in her party accused Gillard of taking too “soft” a line on Israel’s “excesses”; her reaction to the 2009 Gaza conflict, during which she was acting prime minister, was: “Clearly the act of aggression was engaged in by Hamas which commenced shelling with rockets and mortars into Israel. That is what breached the ceasefire, and Israel responded.”
And during the whole Mahmoud al-Mabhouh affair earlier this year, Tony Abbott asked the government—then run by Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd—not to expel an Israeli diplomat over the forged Australian passports that had been used by some of the (allegedly Mossad) assassins. (Rudd didn’t listen.)
So American political observers may want to pay attention to the election, which is next month. From Israel’s perspective, however, it’s a wash.
Going Back or Forward? Australian Vote Leads The Way [WP]
Gillard Accused of Soft Line on Tel Aviv [The Age]
Tony Abbott Calls For Restraint on Israel [The Australian]
Related: Murder in Dubai [Tablet Magazine]
Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180
WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.
I NEED TO BE HEARD! BUT I DONT WANT TO PAY.
Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at email@example.com. Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.
We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.