Australia: A Problem of Moral Consistency

If actions speak louder than words, then Penny Wong’s actions have been delivering a consistent message for nearly two years.

When it comes to the Middle East, Australia’s Foreign Minister is widely perceived by critics as being instinctively more responsive to the Palestinian side of the conflict than to Israel. To be clear, debates around this issue are often polarized, and accusations of antisemitism or bias are themselves contested. But among some commentators, there is a view that anti-Zionism can function as a cover for antisemitic sentiment.

That may be an uncomfortable observation for Wong’s supporters, but it is one shared by a growing number of Australians, particularly within the Jewish community.

Time and again, Wong has found language to criticize Israel. Time and again, she has engaged with Palestinian political leaders. Time and again, she has announced funding, expressed concern, and supported international pressure on Israel.

Yet many Jewish Australians are left asking a simple question: where is that same energy when the target is antisemitism? Where is the urgency, moral clarity or outrage?

Australia has witnessed a significant increase in antisemitic incidents since October 7. Jewish schools, synagogues, and community institutions have faced threats. Many Jewish Australians report feeling less safe than at any point in living memory. Demonstrations that once would have been confined to the political fringe have become mainstream spectacles.

And through it all, the response from much of Australia’s political and cultural establishment has often felt hesitant, conditional, and qualified.

Imagine if instead, they took a hard line on antisemitism from the start? We wouldn’t even be having this conversation today,

Then there is the question of the flotilla activists.

Penny Wong appears willing to devote time and attention to activists returning from attempts to reach Gaza who made serious allegations regarding their treatment by Israeli authorities.

What many Australians find striking is the apparent inconsistency and hypocrisy.

Why did Wong really refuse to visit the October 7 sites or meet with the family of the only Australian, Galit Carbone, killed on October 7 but meet these activists? All it does is further embolden them to return.

Activist circles who previously questioned or disputed reports of sexual violence committed against Israeli women on October 7 are now expecting their own claims to be accepted immediately and without reservation.

Critics also note that some participants in repeated flotilla efforts have previously alleged mistreatment during earlier encounters with Israeli authorities. That naturally raises a reasonable question of why they would voluntarily return to the same circumstances. The question is not unreasonable. Probably because it never happened.

The public imagery surrounding some of these episodes has only fueled further skepticism.

Viewers have seen dramatic scenes of detainees emerging wearing neck braces, being transported on stretchers, or appearing visibly incapacitated, only for later footage and photographs to suggest far less serious limitations. Talk about a managed political theatre.

Either way, the contrast invites scrutiny while these activists deserve no attention.

In any other context, journalists and politicians would regard such inconsistencies as worthy of examination. Yet when the subject is Israel, many feel that skepticism is applied unevenly.

The problem is not that Wong criticizes Israel. Every democracy should be open to criticism when it is warranted.

The problem is the imbalance.

The problem is the perception of a Foreign Minister who sees nuance when Jews are threatened or attacked, but certainty when Israel is in the dock. Who remembers Wong visiting Bondi after the December terrorist attack? None, because there was none.

The problem is a political culture that appears obsessed with framing Israeli actions as wrongdoing while ignoring hostility directed at Jews. Wong is certainly part of that culture, one that did not emerge from nowhere.

For years, influential sections of Australia’s media, academia, and activist class have cultivated an environment in which anti-Zionism is often treated as morally sophisticated and politically enlightened. Anti-Zionism is the modern day antisemitism, or Jew hatred wrapped in a blanket. The result is that rhetoric which would be recognized as prejudice in other contexts is excused, rationalized, or ignored when directed at Zionists.

The ABC has not escaped criticism on this front.

As Australia’s publicly funded broadcaster, it carries a special responsibility to maintain public confidence across the political spectrum. Yet many Australians increasingly view it as the Activist Based Corporation. Surveys suggesting ABC employees lean toward progressive, leftist political parties have reinforced perceptions that the organization is disconnected from broader sections of the country.

Whether those perceptions are entirely justified is almost beside the point. Public trust is shaped by what people see and experience.

Their support for former Australian of the Year, Grace Tame, suits their ideology. ABC Managing Director, Hugh Marks, claiming he has spoken with Tame and knows her intentions. Marks argued that Tame opposes violence against women and children and that her comments should be understood in that context, rather than as support for violence. He used that as part of his defense of the ABC continuing to work with her despite the controversy. What rubbish! Tame dismissed allegations that Israeli women were raped during the October 7 attacks as “propaganda” and “debunked.” This coming from Tame who built her platform based on her own experience with sexual abuse. Why should the taxpayer continue to fund this activist and propaganda network of those who don’t reflect Australian values.

Nothing illustrated the broader contradiction more starkly than the spectacle of political leaders gathering to commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau while antisemitism was simultaneously rising across Western democracies.

Auschwitz is not merely a historical site. It is a warning of what can happen when societies grow comfortable with hostility towards Jews and others, when prejudice, lies, and hatred become normalized, and when leaders believe they are confronting hatred while overlooking its modern forms.

The lesson of Auschwitz is not that antisemitism is complicated. The lesson is that societies fail when they excuse, minimize, or rationalize hatred against Jews because doing so is politically convenient. The Holocaust did not begin with the concentration camps.

That is why symbolism matters.

It is why priorities matter.

It is why Australians are entitled to scrutinize where their Foreign Minister directs her attention, political capital, and moral emphasis.

Penny Wong undoubtedly believes she is acting on principle. But leadership is not judged by intent. It is judged by consequences and the consequence of the past two years is that many Jewish Australians feel increasingly unheard by a political class that speaks constantly about inclusion, diversity, and tolerance, yet often appears hesitant when confronting antisemitism emerging from activist movements or causes. We saw the consequences of “gas the Jews” and “F*** the Jews” on the steps of the Sydney Opera House on October 9, 2023. We saw the consequences of “globalize the intifada” on December 14, 2025 when 15 Australians were murdered on Bondi Beach at a Hannukah festival.

That should concern every Australian, regardless of where they stand on Israel, Palestine, or the broader Middle East conflict.

Because when a community feels increasingly isolated, increasingly targeted, and increasingly unheard, the issue is no longer foreign policy.

It becomes a test of whether leaders are willing to apply the same moral standards consistently.

On that note, many Australians are convinced that Penny Wong failed that test long ago.