Overkill in Gaza: Penny Wong was right to call out Israel

Sydney Morning Herald

2 days ago

This week's joint statement signed by Penny Wong and more than two dozen other foreign affairs ministers calling for an end to the war in Gaza was notable for its directness. It reflects the growing frustration of the Australian and other governments with how Israel is prosecuting the war.
The disconnect between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's unreconcilable twin aims of destroying Hamas, while at the same rescuing the hostages, is becoming increasingly apparent with the death of every civilian and the lack of hostages being returned.
Revenge for the 1200 people Hamas slaughtered in October 2023 should by now have been achieved, and Hamas' military capabilities have been dealt a grievous blow. There is no argument that Hamas had to pay a heavy price for its terrorist attack, and the brutal reality is that the civilians among whom they hide would suffer as a result.
But there are limits to such suffering, and the principles of military necessity and proportionality are supposed to guide and constrain the use of military force. For some time now, there has been a growing international consensus that Israel is exacting far too heavy a toll on all Gazans for the sins of Hamas. And it is also increasingly apparent that the Israeli government lacks any coherent plan for post-conflict Gaza.
Canberra knows that on its own it has little clout with Israel, so it has used a multinational approach to call for an end to the fighting. It was also notable that the letter co-signed by Wong focused first on Israel's aid delivery model, a privatised version designed to tie the location and provision of humanitarian aid to military goals and to sideline professional international humanitarian organisations.
The Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was controversial from the start – its original executive director, US military veteran Jake Wood, resigned before the first meal was delivered, citing his personal concerns that 'it is not possible to implement this plan while also strictly adhering to the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence'.
Boston Consulting Group issued a public apology once it was revealed that two of its partners were involved in the scoping and planning for what was to become the GHF. The opaque funding sources for the foundation are concerning, as is the fact that the executive chairman is an evangelical preacher with close personal ties to US President Donald Trump.
The security, provided by masked US private security contractors at the distribution points and the Israeli military in the area surrounding those sites, has been equally controversial. Reports of hundreds of aid-seekers being killed during the operation of the centres is alarming. Even if only partially true, nobody should die trying to feed their families.