‘Double standards’: Confidential DFAT documents warn inaction on Gaza will cost Australia credibility

A confidential Australian government document reveals internal concerns that Western nations face credible accusations of double standards over their response to Israel’s assault on Gaza.

Allowing the crisis to worsen “with apparent impunity undermines our messaging about the rule of law” and can be seized on by “our adversaries”, officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) wrote in a document obtained by Crikey under freedom of information (FOI) laws.

The stark language is part of a 171-page tranche of DFAT-produced documents related to Middle East international law issues, although many of the pages are blanked out to avoid harming Australia’s foreign relations.

“Indo-Pacific countries, especially in South-East Asia, are horrified by the destruction in Gaza — for many, the humanitarian crisis overshadows other issues in the Middle East region,” reads a section titled “Israel-Hamas Conflict Talking Points”.

“Allowing the crisis in Gaza to deepen with apparent impunity undermines our messaging about the rule of law — our adversaries use this to accuse us of double standards.”

The language in this section appears to be in the style of a diplomatic meeting with a close ally or partner, rather than for a media interview. 

It added: “While each of our countries has its own perspective on the Hamas-Israel war, we must find common ground in the desire for long-term security for both Israelis and Palestinians, and stability in the broader region.”

Crikey has confirmed that the document in question was produced by DFAT officials, but its exact purpose has yet to be clarified. It must have been produced after 24 June, 2025, given that the same page refers to Australia welcoming the Israel-Iran ceasefire.

Can’t ‘pick and choose’

The publication of these frank comments will reinforce the views of critics of the Albanese government that its increasingly strong rhetoric against the Israeli government should be matched with concrete action, such as wider sanctions.

Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong was contacted for comment on Tuesday, but she has previously said Australia cannot “pick and choose which rules we are going to apply”. Wong said in December 2024 that Russia, China and Israel must “abide by international law”.

In a Senate hearing in June 2024, Wong said Australia “cannot insist that China abide by international legal decisions in the South China Sea, but threaten to pull out of the International Criminal Court” as the Coalition had “recklessly” threatened.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister Yoav Gallant are wanted by the ICC to face accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including using starvation as a weapon of war — allegations they deny.

But public pressure in Australia is building: most visibly when more than 100,000 people marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge on Sunday to demand an end to what leading human rights organisations and experts have labelled as Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

The March for Humanity also called for Australia to impose wider sanctions on the Israeli government. So far, Australia has limited such sanctions to far-right ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich “for inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank”.

‘Do the US strikes breach international law?’

Late last month, amid growing public outrage over the starvation of civilians in Gaza, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese acknowledged that Israel was “quite clearly” breaching international law.

But weeks earlier, Australian ministers dodged questions about whether Israeli and American strikes on Iran in June had breached international law, as outside experts asserted.

The FOI documents obtained by Crikey suggest DFAT advised the Australian government to avoid expressing a legal view on the Iran strikes. For example, on June 14, the official talking points said it was “not helpful to offer a running legal commentary”.

In an updated version on June 23, DFAT provided an answer to the question: “Do the US strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites breach international law?”

Officials first proposed an indirect answer: “Australia has been clear that Iran’s nuclear weapons program is a threat to global peace and security, and the security of the region. Australia continues to urge all parties to prioritise de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy.”

If, however, a journalist “pressed” the legal point further, the talking points suggested answering: “Not here to provide legal analysis.”  

Albanese and Wong held a press conference in Canberra on June 23 to declare Australia supported the US strikes, because “we support action to prevent” Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Twice that day, Wong refused to directly answer questions about the legality of the US strikes. UNSW Canberra international law Professor Douglas Guilfoyle posted on social media at the time that this hesitation to answer seemed to be an admission that “there is no way to spin this as legal”, which he said was “the only available assessment”.

Albanese also said Australia had “called upon Iran to come to the table and abandon any nuclear weapons program”, but “Iran didn’t come to the table”.

In fact, a sixth round of renewed US-Iran nuclear negotiations was due to be held in Oman on June 15, but was cancelled after Israel attacked Iran on June 13. Israel claimed its strikes were justified by “anticipatory self-defence”.

The FOI documents show Australia’s ambassador for arms control and counter-proliferation Vanessa Wood circulated a briefing to DFAT colleagues on June 14 about the latest developments at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

“For the first time since 2005, on June 12 (one day before Israel’s strikes on Iran), the IAEA board of governors adopted a resolution finding Iran non-compliant with its [Non-Proliferation Treaty] safeguards obligations …”

The same briefing noted, however, that the June 12 resolution “deferred reporting Iran’s non-compliance to the Security Council, giving Iran a final opportunity to cooperate with the IAEA”.

“It also stressed support for a diplomatic solution, including the US-Iran talks.”

Israel and the US subsequently took the military option.