Queensland literary awards under review after fellowship withdrawn from First Nations writer
The Queensland State Library has confirmed the black&write! fellowships will continue next year, after a First Nations author had a fellowship withdrawn over a social media post.
Author Karen Wyld, who writes under the name K A Ren Wyld, made and then deleted a social media post on X, describing slain Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar as a 'martyr' following his death in October last year.
She was due to receive a $15,000 black&write! fellowship for Indigenous writers at a ceremony on May 20.
However, the fellowship was revoked after Queensland Arts Minister John-Paul Langbroek wrote to the library's board on May 16 and again on May 19 to express his concerns.
A library spokesperson said the decision to withdraw the fellowship was unrelated to Wyld's manuscript, which focused on the stolen generations and received 'high praise for its literary merit from the panel of expert judges'.
When asked if it had been withdrawn at the request of the Queensland government, the spokesperson said the decision was made after Langbroek told parliament on May 20 he had 'taken the decision that this award should not be presented' at the state library.
Langbroek said there was no place in libraries, music awards or in publicly funded venues for the 'glorification of terrorism', describing the post as 'deeply offensive'.
'This government will always defend freedom of speech including the arts, but that freedom does not extend to celebrating murder and violence, nor does it absolve individuals from the consequences of eroding public confidence or support,' he said.
'Whilst I support the principles of free expression and creative diversity, any perception that taxpayer-funded awards [are] being granted to individuals who justify terrorism undermines public trust, both in our institutions and in the cultural section sector more broadly,' he added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
3 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Pot, kettle, black. We're wallowing in hypocrisy
This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to Who the hell does that? It was a hospital, for god's sake. Full of the sick, the immobile. Babies. Mothers. Innocents. The tyrants will pay a high price, he told the media, with as straight a face as he could muster - a challenge for someone whose mouth always struggles to suppress an ironic smirk. This was a criminal act, he said. We target military installations; they target civilians. Benjamin Netanyahu's condemnation of the Iranian missile strike on the Soroka Medical Centre in the southern Israeli city of Beersheba was meant to rally his nation, showing the world it was acting with high moral purpose. Instead, it reeked of hypocrisy. Just 40km away, in the rubble that was once Gaza, people have lost count of the number of times hospitals have been struck by Israel. Lost count, too, of the number of times Israel claimed the attacks - not just on hospitals but on schools and tented encampments - were targeting Hamas militants. The only count not lost: the 55,000 dead Palestinians. The day before the hospital was hit, dozens of Palestinians were killed in Gaza trying to get food from the shambolic Israeli-run aid distribution sites. Some of the dead showed injuries consistent with tank fire. Pot, kettle, black. Of course, the hypocrisy isn't limited to Netanyahu in this ugly slugfest between Israel and Iran. The leaders of our own democracies have been wallowing in it too. For years, they've championed a rules-based world order but the moment Israel breaks those rules - as international law experts argue it has with its pre-emptive strike on Iran - they go to water. Japan is the only G7 nation to condemn Israel's attack on Iran but has stopped short of sanctioning it. When a key enforcer of those rules, the International Atomic Energy Agency, says explicitly there is no evidence to indicate that Iran has a plan to develop nuclear weapons, justification for that pre-emptive strike looks as thin as George W. Bush's pretext for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Remember? The weapons of mass destruction no one could find. All we see, however, are bland appeals for de-escalation and a diplomatic resolution. Israel isn't chastised for its risky impunity. Instead, it's given tacit support with statements about its right to defend itself even if there's no evidence of an imminent threat. Applying that logic, was Russia justified in invading Ukraine because it perceived an imminent threat? Of course it wasn't. But in geopolitics what's good for the goose doesn't always apply to the gander. You only have to pause on the words of German chancellor Friedrich Merz to see how that works: "This is the dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us." Dirty work indeed. It's not in anyone's interest for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Nor for Israel to have them for that matter. And it's certainly not in anyone's interest to have missiles raining down on nuclear facilities either. The world made that clear when artillery shells struck the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station in Ukraine during the Russian invasion. Yet we hear little about the potential for a nuclear calamity if these strikes continue. We're informed of radiation levels in Iran by the IAEA, the nuclear enforcement agency granted access to its facilities because the country signed up to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In so doing, it agreed to play by the very rules others seem so keen to dispense with. HAVE YOUR SAY: How important is it to maintain a rules-based order in international affairs? Should other countries follow Japan's lead in condemning Israel for its pre-emptive strike on Iran? Are we repeating the same mistakes made in Iraq back in 2003? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The Coalition's former leader in the Senate, Simon Birmingham, will join the Australian Banking Association as its chief executive, in his first major move outside politics. - Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will not go to The Hague for this week's NATO summit, with his deputy Richard Marles to represent Australia at the event as originally planned. - Artificial intelligence could disrupt more than just technology - it could widen the gender gap between boys and girls studying science, technology, engineering and maths. THEY SAID IT: "Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are." - Franklin D. Roosevelt YOU SAID IT: Our relationship with the US is not what it used to be. Perhaps it's time, Garry wrote, that we grew up and moved on. "Many of us, including various peace groups and LAW (Labor Against War) are not happy to be aligned with the US, the planet's most aggressive country since World War II," writes Judy from Newcastle. "AUKUS is a wasteful mistake. We don't have enemies, however, our sycophantic politicians allow increasing US bases, troops, ports and general infrastructure for a war. These threaten our security. Now is the perfect time to part company." There's still hope for the relationship, writes Arthur: "Donald Trump has only three and a half years to run, assuming he does not find his way to get re-elected. At the end of his term we may be able to start a process of reconciliation but we must never go back to being so vulnerable to the whims of a future president." "For these past 50 years I have been longing for Australia to be an adult country," writes Debora. "We have acted as a 'child' country: going from child to the parent UK - 'home' and empire, to child to the parent US from the faux ANZUS alliance to the craven AUKUS nonsense. Either we do that again - this time as a child country to China or we finally learn to stand on our own two feet - yes, with strong alliances and trade relationships but not as a supplicant to any nation." Bill from McKellar writes: "A marvellous piece of writing - one can only hope our politicians are subscribers to the Echidna. Ever since ScoMo tried to wedge the ALP with AUKUS, and the unquestioning embrace of it by the ALP, our foreign policy wheels have fallen off. So many of our past politicians have expressed views like yours - when will Albanese and Ley listen to them and wake up to what's happening?" This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to Who the hell does that? It was a hospital, for god's sake. Full of the sick, the immobile. Babies. Mothers. Innocents. The tyrants will pay a high price, he told the media, with as straight a face as he could muster - a challenge for someone whose mouth always struggles to suppress an ironic smirk. This was a criminal act, he said. We target military installations; they target civilians. Benjamin Netanyahu's condemnation of the Iranian missile strike on the Soroka Medical Centre in the southern Israeli city of Beersheba was meant to rally his nation, showing the world it was acting with high moral purpose. Instead, it reeked of hypocrisy. Just 40km away, in the rubble that was once Gaza, people have lost count of the number of times hospitals have been struck by Israel. Lost count, too, of the number of times Israel claimed the attacks - not just on hospitals but on schools and tented encampments - were targeting Hamas militants. The only count not lost: the 55,000 dead Palestinians. The day before the hospital was hit, dozens of Palestinians were killed in Gaza trying to get food from the shambolic Israeli-run aid distribution sites. Some of the dead showed injuries consistent with tank fire. Pot, kettle, black. Of course, the hypocrisy isn't limited to Netanyahu in this ugly slugfest between Israel and Iran. The leaders of our own democracies have been wallowing in it too. For years, they've championed a rules-based world order but the moment Israel breaks those rules - as international law experts argue it has with its pre-emptive strike on Iran - they go to water. Japan is the only G7 nation to condemn Israel's attack on Iran but has stopped short of sanctioning it. When a key enforcer of those rules, the International Atomic Energy Agency, says explicitly there is no evidence to indicate that Iran has a plan to develop nuclear weapons, justification for that pre-emptive strike looks as thin as George W. Bush's pretext for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Remember? The weapons of mass destruction no one could find. All we see, however, are bland appeals for de-escalation and a diplomatic resolution. Israel isn't chastised for its risky impunity. Instead, it's given tacit support with statements about its right to defend itself even if there's no evidence of an imminent threat. Applying that logic, was Russia justified in invading Ukraine because it perceived an imminent threat? Of course it wasn't. But in geopolitics what's good for the goose doesn't always apply to the gander. You only have to pause on the words of German chancellor Friedrich Merz to see how that works: "This is the dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us." Dirty work indeed. It's not in anyone's interest for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Nor for Israel to have them for that matter. And it's certainly not in anyone's interest to have missiles raining down on nuclear facilities either. The world made that clear when artillery shells struck the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station in Ukraine during the Russian invasion. Yet we hear little about the potential for a nuclear calamity if these strikes continue. We're informed of radiation levels in Iran by the IAEA, the nuclear enforcement agency granted access to its facilities because the country signed up to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In so doing, it agreed to play by the very rules others seem so keen to dispense with. HAVE YOUR SAY: How important is it to maintain a rules-based order in international affairs? Should other countries follow Japan's lead in condemning Israel for its pre-emptive strike on Iran? Are we repeating the same mistakes made in Iraq back in 2003? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The Coalition's former leader in the Senate, Simon Birmingham, will join the Australian Banking Association as its chief executive, in his first major move outside politics. - Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will not go to The Hague for this week's NATO summit, with his deputy Richard Marles to represent Australia at the event as originally planned. - Artificial intelligence could disrupt more than just technology - it could widen the gender gap between boys and girls studying science, technology, engineering and maths. THEY SAID IT: "Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are." - Franklin D. Roosevelt YOU SAID IT: Our relationship with the US is not what it used to be. Perhaps it's time, Garry wrote, that we grew up and moved on. "Many of us, including various peace groups and LAW (Labor Against War) are not happy to be aligned with the US, the planet's most aggressive country since World War II," writes Judy from Newcastle. "AUKUS is a wasteful mistake. We don't have enemies, however, our sycophantic politicians allow increasing US bases, troops, ports and general infrastructure for a war. These threaten our security. Now is the perfect time to part company." There's still hope for the relationship, writes Arthur: "Donald Trump has only three and a half years to run, assuming he does not find his way to get re-elected. At the end of his term we may be able to start a process of reconciliation but we must never go back to being so vulnerable to the whims of a future president." "For these past 50 years I have been longing for Australia to be an adult country," writes Debora. "We have acted as a 'child' country: going from child to the parent UK - 'home' and empire, to child to the parent US from the faux ANZUS alliance to the craven AUKUS nonsense. Either we do that again - this time as a child country to China or we finally learn to stand on our own two feet - yes, with strong alliances and trade relationships but not as a supplicant to any nation." Bill from McKellar writes: "A marvellous piece of writing - one can only hope our politicians are subscribers to the Echidna. Ever since ScoMo tried to wedge the ALP with AUKUS, and the unquestioning embrace of it by the ALP, our foreign policy wheels have fallen off. So many of our past politicians have expressed views like yours - when will Albanese and Ley listen to them and wake up to what's happening?" This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to Who the hell does that? It was a hospital, for god's sake. Full of the sick, the immobile. Babies. Mothers. Innocents. The tyrants will pay a high price, he told the media, with as straight a face as he could muster - a challenge for someone whose mouth always struggles to suppress an ironic smirk. This was a criminal act, he said. We target military installations; they target civilians. Benjamin Netanyahu's condemnation of the Iranian missile strike on the Soroka Medical Centre in the southern Israeli city of Beersheba was meant to rally his nation, showing the world it was acting with high moral purpose. Instead, it reeked of hypocrisy. Just 40km away, in the rubble that was once Gaza, people have lost count of the number of times hospitals have been struck by Israel. Lost count, too, of the number of times Israel claimed the attacks - not just on hospitals but on schools and tented encampments - were targeting Hamas militants. The only count not lost: the 55,000 dead Palestinians. The day before the hospital was hit, dozens of Palestinians were killed in Gaza trying to get food from the shambolic Israeli-run aid distribution sites. Some of the dead showed injuries consistent with tank fire. Pot, kettle, black. Of course, the hypocrisy isn't limited to Netanyahu in this ugly slugfest between Israel and Iran. The leaders of our own democracies have been wallowing in it too. For years, they've championed a rules-based world order but the moment Israel breaks those rules - as international law experts argue it has with its pre-emptive strike on Iran - they go to water. Japan is the only G7 nation to condemn Israel's attack on Iran but has stopped short of sanctioning it. When a key enforcer of those rules, the International Atomic Energy Agency, says explicitly there is no evidence to indicate that Iran has a plan to develop nuclear weapons, justification for that pre-emptive strike looks as thin as George W. Bush's pretext for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Remember? The weapons of mass destruction no one could find. All we see, however, are bland appeals for de-escalation and a diplomatic resolution. Israel isn't chastised for its risky impunity. Instead, it's given tacit support with statements about its right to defend itself even if there's no evidence of an imminent threat. Applying that logic, was Russia justified in invading Ukraine because it perceived an imminent threat? Of course it wasn't. But in geopolitics what's good for the goose doesn't always apply to the gander. You only have to pause on the words of German chancellor Friedrich Merz to see how that works: "This is the dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us." Dirty work indeed. It's not in anyone's interest for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Nor for Israel to have them for that matter. And it's certainly not in anyone's interest to have missiles raining down on nuclear facilities either. The world made that clear when artillery shells struck the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station in Ukraine during the Russian invasion. Yet we hear little about the potential for a nuclear calamity if these strikes continue. We're informed of radiation levels in Iran by the IAEA, the nuclear enforcement agency granted access to its facilities because the country signed up to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In so doing, it agreed to play by the very rules others seem so keen to dispense with. HAVE YOUR SAY: How important is it to maintain a rules-based order in international affairs? Should other countries follow Japan's lead in condemning Israel for its pre-emptive strike on Iran? Are we repeating the same mistakes made in Iraq back in 2003? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The Coalition's former leader in the Senate, Simon Birmingham, will join the Australian Banking Association as its chief executive, in his first major move outside politics. - Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will not go to The Hague for this week's NATO summit, with his deputy Richard Marles to represent Australia at the event as originally planned. - Artificial intelligence could disrupt more than just technology - it could widen the gender gap between boys and girls studying science, technology, engineering and maths. THEY SAID IT: "Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are." - Franklin D. Roosevelt YOU SAID IT: Our relationship with the US is not what it used to be. Perhaps it's time, Garry wrote, that we grew up and moved on. "Many of us, including various peace groups and LAW (Labor Against War) are not happy to be aligned with the US, the planet's most aggressive country since World War II," writes Judy from Newcastle. "AUKUS is a wasteful mistake. We don't have enemies, however, our sycophantic politicians allow increasing US bases, troops, ports and general infrastructure for a war. These threaten our security. Now is the perfect time to part company." There's still hope for the relationship, writes Arthur: "Donald Trump has only three and a half years to run, assuming he does not find his way to get re-elected. At the end of his term we may be able to start a process of reconciliation but we must never go back to being so vulnerable to the whims of a future president." "For these past 50 years I have been longing for Australia to be an adult country," writes Debora. "We have acted as a 'child' country: going from child to the parent UK - 'home' and empire, to child to the parent US from the faux ANZUS alliance to the craven AUKUS nonsense. Either we do that again - this time as a child country to China or we finally learn to stand on our own two feet - yes, with strong alliances and trade relationships but not as a supplicant to any nation." Bill from McKellar writes: "A marvellous piece of writing - one can only hope our politicians are subscribers to the Echidna. Ever since ScoMo tried to wedge the ALP with AUKUS, and the unquestioning embrace of it by the ALP, our foreign policy wheels have fallen off. So many of our past politicians have expressed views like yours - when will Albanese and Ley listen to them and wake up to what's happening?" This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to Who the hell does that? It was a hospital, for god's sake. Full of the sick, the immobile. Babies. Mothers. Innocents. The tyrants will pay a high price, he told the media, with as straight a face as he could muster - a challenge for someone whose mouth always struggles to suppress an ironic smirk. This was a criminal act, he said. We target military installations; they target civilians. Benjamin Netanyahu's condemnation of the Iranian missile strike on the Soroka Medical Centre in the southern Israeli city of Beersheba was meant to rally his nation, showing the world it was acting with high moral purpose. Instead, it reeked of hypocrisy. Just 40km away, in the rubble that was once Gaza, people have lost count of the number of times hospitals have been struck by Israel. Lost count, too, of the number of times Israel claimed the attacks - not just on hospitals but on schools and tented encampments - were targeting Hamas militants. The only count not lost: the 55,000 dead Palestinians. The day before the hospital was hit, dozens of Palestinians were killed in Gaza trying to get food from the shambolic Israeli-run aid distribution sites. Some of the dead showed injuries consistent with tank fire. Pot, kettle, black. Of course, the hypocrisy isn't limited to Netanyahu in this ugly slugfest between Israel and Iran. The leaders of our own democracies have been wallowing in it too. For years, they've championed a rules-based world order but the moment Israel breaks those rules - as international law experts argue it has with its pre-emptive strike on Iran - they go to water. Japan is the only G7 nation to condemn Israel's attack on Iran but has stopped short of sanctioning it. When a key enforcer of those rules, the International Atomic Energy Agency, says explicitly there is no evidence to indicate that Iran has a plan to develop nuclear weapons, justification for that pre-emptive strike looks as thin as George W. Bush's pretext for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Remember? The weapons of mass destruction no one could find. All we see, however, are bland appeals for de-escalation and a diplomatic resolution. Israel isn't chastised for its risky impunity. Instead, it's given tacit support with statements about its right to defend itself even if there's no evidence of an imminent threat. Applying that logic, was Russia justified in invading Ukraine because it perceived an imminent threat? Of course it wasn't. But in geopolitics what's good for the goose doesn't always apply to the gander. You only have to pause on the words of German chancellor Friedrich Merz to see how that works: "This is the dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us." Dirty work indeed. It's not in anyone's interest for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Nor for Israel to have them for that matter. And it's certainly not in anyone's interest to have missiles raining down on nuclear facilities either. The world made that clear when artillery shells struck the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station in Ukraine during the Russian invasion. Yet we hear little about the potential for a nuclear calamity if these strikes continue. We're informed of radiation levels in Iran by the IAEA, the nuclear enforcement agency granted access to its facilities because the country signed up to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In so doing, it agreed to play by the very rules others seem so keen to dispense with. HAVE YOUR SAY: How important is it to maintain a rules-based order in international affairs? Should other countries follow Japan's lead in condemning Israel for its pre-emptive strike on Iran? Are we repeating the same mistakes made in Iraq back in 2003? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The Coalition's former leader in the Senate, Simon Birmingham, will join the Australian Banking Association as its chief executive, in his first major move outside politics. - Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will not go to The Hague for this week's NATO summit, with his deputy Richard Marles to represent Australia at the event as originally planned. - Artificial intelligence could disrupt more than just technology - it could widen the gender gap between boys and girls studying science, technology, engineering and maths. THEY SAID IT: "Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are." - Franklin D. Roosevelt YOU SAID IT: Our relationship with the US is not what it used to be. Perhaps it's time, Garry wrote, that we grew up and moved on. "Many of us, including various peace groups and LAW (Labor Against War) are not happy to be aligned with the US, the planet's most aggressive country since World War II," writes Judy from Newcastle. "AUKUS is a wasteful mistake. We don't have enemies, however, our sycophantic politicians allow increasing US bases, troops, ports and general infrastructure for a war. These threaten our security. Now is the perfect time to part company." There's still hope for the relationship, writes Arthur: "Donald Trump has only three and a half years to run, assuming he does not find his way to get re-elected. At the end of his term we may be able to start a process of reconciliation but we must never go back to being so vulnerable to the whims of a future president." "For these past 50 years I have been longing for Australia to be an adult country," writes Debora. "We have acted as a 'child' country: going from child to the parent UK - 'home' and empire, to child to the parent US from the faux ANZUS alliance to the craven AUKUS nonsense. Either we do that again - this time as a child country to China or we finally learn to stand on our own two feet - yes, with strong alliances and trade relationships but not as a supplicant to any nation." Bill from McKellar writes: "A marvellous piece of writing - one can only hope our politicians are subscribers to the Echidna. Ever since ScoMo tried to wedge the ALP with AUKUS, and the unquestioning embrace of it by the ALP, our foreign policy wheels have fallen off. So many of our past politicians have expressed views like yours - when will Albanese and Ley listen to them and wake up to what's happening?"
The Age
5 hours ago
- The Age
Trump's strike on Iran supercharges Netanyahu's comeback
Alternatively, if the Iranian response is limited, the Israeli government may wind down the war, satisfied that it has achieved most of what it hoped for, and conscious that a longer conflict risks straining Israel's air-defence system. 'The ball is in the Iranian yard,' said Major General Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence. 'If Iran keeps on firing missiles, Israel will continue its own strikes and pursue more achievements, targeting Iran's missile launchers and missile factories, its oil industry and its civilian leadership.' Regardless of what happens next in Iran, Netanyahu's success has already changed the political landscape in Israel. After Israel began striking Iran more than a week ago, broadcasters published opinion polling that suggested his coalition had greater support than at almost any point since the start of Israel's war with Hamas in late 2023. On Sunday morning, Jerusalem time, his biggest domestic critics even applauded the success of his campaign, including his achievement in persuading US President Donald Trump to join the battle and destroy targets that Israeli warplanes could not reach. 'I don't have a problem with him enjoying this moment,' Yair Lapid, the leader of the opposition, said of Netanyahu in a radio interview. 'This is a success for Netanyahu, a success for Trump, and a success for the free world. This is what needed to happen.' Buoyed by the blow against Iran, Netanyahu could show greater flexibility in the negotiations to reach a new truce and hostage release deal in the Gaza Strip, analysts said. Loading For most of the war, he has avoided reaching a deal in Gaza that would allow Hamas' remnant leadership to retain significant influence in the territory. Netanyahu's far-right coalition partners repeatedly threatened to quit the government if the Gaza war ended without Hamas' total defeat. And with Netanyahu's party languishing in the polls, he appeared unwilling to make concessions in the talks that risked the collapse of his political alliance, most recently during renewed negotiations in May. Now, Netanyahu has options. Having exacted a price from Iran, Hamas' biggest benefactor, Netanyahu may be able to persuade his coalition to compromise in the talks with Hamas itself, according to his former adviser, Nadav Shtrauchler. 'Soon he hopefully will be able to say: 'We changed the Middle East. Now we need to be more flexible on other fronts – in Gaza and regarding the hostages',' Shtrauchler said. 'It will not happen tomorrow, but a window of opportunity has been opened.' If he does agree to a ceasefire in Gaza, that in turn would raise the chances of Netanyahu's achieving another long-held ambition: the normalisation of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, the Arab world's most powerful country. In talks last year with US diplomats, officials said, Saudi Arabia signalled its openness to such a landmark deal – if the war ends in Gaza and if Netanyahu agrees to Palestinian sovereignty. Loading The former is still a long shot, and the latter is even less likely, given Netanyahu's resistance to a Palestinian state. But since he may be less beholden to his far-right allies, the prime minister could have more room to manoeuvre. 'It's now easier for him to make big diplomatic moves like a Saudi deal,' Shtrauchler said.
Sydney Morning Herald
5 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Trump's strike on Iran supercharges Netanyahu's comeback
Alternatively, if the Iranian response is limited, the Israeli government may wind down the war, satisfied that it has achieved most of what it hoped for, and conscious that a longer conflict risks straining Israel's air-defence system. 'The ball is in the Iranian yard,' said Major General Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence. 'If Iran keeps on firing missiles, Israel will continue its own strikes and pursue more achievements, targeting Iran's missile launchers and missile factories, its oil industry and its civilian leadership.' Regardless of what happens next in Iran, Netanyahu's success has already changed the political landscape in Israel. After Israel began striking Iran more than a week ago, broadcasters published opinion polling that suggested his coalition had greater support than at almost any point since the start of Israel's war with Hamas in late 2023. On Sunday morning, Jerusalem time, his biggest domestic critics even applauded the success of his campaign, including his achievement in persuading US President Donald Trump to join the battle and destroy targets that Israeli warplanes could not reach. 'I don't have a problem with him enjoying this moment,' Yair Lapid, the leader of the opposition, said of Netanyahu in a radio interview. 'This is a success for Netanyahu, a success for Trump, and a success for the free world. This is what needed to happen.' Buoyed by the blow against Iran, Netanyahu could show greater flexibility in the negotiations to reach a new truce and hostage release deal in the Gaza Strip, analysts said. Loading For most of the war, he has avoided reaching a deal in Gaza that would allow Hamas' remnant leadership to retain significant influence in the territory. Netanyahu's far-right coalition partners repeatedly threatened to quit the government if the Gaza war ended without Hamas' total defeat. And with Netanyahu's party languishing in the polls, he appeared unwilling to make concessions in the talks that risked the collapse of his political alliance, most recently during renewed negotiations in May. Now, Netanyahu has options. Having exacted a price from Iran, Hamas' biggest benefactor, Netanyahu may be able to persuade his coalition to compromise in the talks with Hamas itself, according to his former adviser, Nadav Shtrauchler. 'Soon he hopefully will be able to say: 'We changed the Middle East. Now we need to be more flexible on other fronts – in Gaza and regarding the hostages',' Shtrauchler said. 'It will not happen tomorrow, but a window of opportunity has been opened.' If he does agree to a ceasefire in Gaza, that in turn would raise the chances of Netanyahu's achieving another long-held ambition: the normalisation of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, the Arab world's most powerful country. In talks last year with US diplomats, officials said, Saudi Arabia signalled its openness to such a landmark deal – if the war ends in Gaza and if Netanyahu agrees to Palestinian sovereignty. Loading The former is still a long shot, and the latter is even less likely, given Netanyahu's resistance to a Palestinian state. But since he may be less beholden to his far-right allies, the prime minister could have more room to manoeuvre. 'It's now easier for him to make big diplomatic moves like a Saudi deal,' Shtrauchler said.
