The main point of Kelly’s argument, though, centres on Australia’s decision last week to vote in favour of a resolution calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza. The December vote stood out because of the overwhelming number of countries in favour. Not only that, all of Washington’s NATO allies, as well as all of its Five Eyes partners, voted in favour of the resolution. France and the UK, both of which have provided air support to protect Israel during one of Iran’s rocket and missile attacks, also voted in favour of the proposal.
Loading
The resolution’s wording was acknowledged as not perfect. However, in concert with nearly every other liberal democracy in the world, Australia was sending Israel a message that, after more than a year of military operations in Gaza, in which Hamas’ leadership has been eliminated and the organisation rendered largely combat-ineffective for a period of time, there has been enough killing. There should be nothing controversial in this.
The issue is emotive, for sure. Most commentators are partisan and advocates by and large exhibit no capacity for introspection, so both sides talk past each other. For all the news that events in the region rightly generate, the reality is that only a small number of Australians have any direct connection with the conflict. So governments such as Australia’s should, and do, vote on matters in the United Nations based on what they believe is in the national interest, not in the interest of one particular group. Given the emotiveness, Kelly’s article was disappointing because it didn’t add to the quality of the debate.
Dr Rodger Shanahan is a Middle East analyst, author and former army officer.
- For more: Elrisala website and for social networking, you can follow us on Facebook
- Source of information and images “brisbanetimes”“
