Diplomatic relations between Israel and Australia are under new pressure, with news that the Israeli Mossad agency allegedly tampered with three Australian passports as part of its assassination of Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh last month.
Foreign minister Stephen Smith said “…if the results of (our) investigation cause us to come to the conclusion that the abuse of Australian passports was in any way sponsored or condoned by Israeli officials, then Australia would not regard that as the act of a friend”.
Former foreign minister Alexander Downer said “My recollection is that over time we have raised this issue with the Israelis. We have raised the issue of Israeli intelligence officers using foreign passports and that they should not consider using Australian passports.”
Israeli Foreign Ministery spokesperson Yigal Palmor said “I haven’t heard any government accuse Israel of being involved in that, not in France, not in Britain, not in Ireland, not in Germany and now not in Australia…There have been many hints, or direct accusations by media (but) … they don’t represent any official stance. We don’t think we should feel concerned.”
What now for Australia and Israel? Here’s what the pundits are saying.
National Times
Daniel Flitton: This is not the way to treat a steadfast friend
The facts of this case must first be established, but if it’s shown that Israel has abused Australia’s trust, that protection is forever diminished. A long friendship is on the line.
Michelle Grattan: Rudd rides in to save the day
It was, of course, a serious issue and you’d expect him (Rudd) to be out there, but it also gave him a useful opportunity to sound statesmanlike.
The Australian
Greg Sheridan: Theft burned a strong supporter
It is astonishing to find a circumstance in which the PM is condemning Israel. To misuse the Australian connection in this way is a very poor show by the Israelis.
Sydney Morning Herald
Peter Hartcher: Betrayed PM should not be taken for granted by Israel
And this only intensified his (Rudd’s) sense of betrayal.
Courier-Mail
Dennis Atkins: Kevin Rudd’s outrage will have little effect on Israeli
But behind the genuinely angry words from the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister there is an understanding – and probably a grudging acceptance – that this is what Israel does.
Elsewhere
Mark Steven, New Matilda: Passport act ‘Not the act of a friend’
The media’s emphasis on passports speaks to something at the very core of Israel’s war with Palestine — and of today’s global politics. What it speaks to is the role of identity and, more precisely, the significance of names.
This whole exercise has been a good test. Most people who are fully aware of the entire story and chronology have little sympathy for Mahmoud Mahmoud. If swift biblical justice based on Mosaic Law was in place in more countries the world would be a better place. Many justice systems are too lenient on serious crime. A lot of young people have little or no respect for authority. Serious decisions of crime and punishment must be made. Sometimes drastic actions are required. People do not realise we are in war between the forces of good and the forces of evil in the world. This action has worked on many different levels. The philosophy, reasoning and jurisprudence behind it were sound. Too many media commentators and members of the public are soft. They have no idea of the vigilance, focus and effort required in work by the police, intelligence services and defence force personnel. They live in an anaesthetized world whereby the real dangers of the world are ignored. These same people are quite happy to leave the heavy spiritual lifting up to others.
“We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” – George Orwell
@adamneira – one of the ‘real’ dangers of the world is the rank black and white thinking you espouse. Them and us, us and them – a testament to separation and violence like your Mosaic law.
That’s a fundamental statement of the conservative view, Adamneira: the world is scary, complicated and confusing, so we must reduce it to comforting, black-and-white concepts and enforce that reduction with violence. The reverence for assassins and torturers in your post is authoritarian, terrifying, and the antithesis of everything the civilised world stands for.
The differences between al-Mabhou and his killers are negligible. They are all elements of the primitive game of dominance and attrition that the Middle East is addicted to. Mossad kills terrorists, but also elected officials and non-violent popular leaders and organisers if it furthers Israel’s dominance of the region.
Mossad is a vile organisation, and if only Jesus had been Palestinian you’d be here praising Hamas and condemning Israel, so don’t pretend that comfort zone you’re in has any basis other than backward superstition.
Interesting that Mossad “allegedly” used a bunch of pre-dominantly Anglo-English speaking country passports such as UK, Ireland, Australia.
But there is not mention of US passports.
I guess there are some friends its ok to mis-use and then there’s the hand that subsidies your military.
Apart from the moral implications of what is implied by assassination, you would really have to question the strategic wisdom in killing Mahmoud. Israel may have killed a single senior Hamas operative but what have they gained?
They have managed to put offside a number of friendly governments AND have advertised for all the world to see the fact that they have a sophisticated mechanism for forging (or otherwise illegally aquiring) foreign passports and travel documents.
They have also had the faces of a number of their operatives plastered across the internet and have had a number of their operational procedures captured on video for the no doubt close analysis by their enemies.
Also, as a number of the passports forged appear to have been harvested in Israel, you would probably expect that some would-be tourists may have second thoughts about travelling there.
All that for the death of an operative (who may or may not have given more information out before he died) – did they lose more than they gained?