Sanctions must influence, not just perform disapproval

Sanctions have acquired the moral glamour of action. They allow a government to demonstrate that it has heard the outrage, identified the offender and imposed a price. The announcement is made. The names are published. The virtue is visible.

Whether anything changes is a more difficult question.

Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong has confirmed that Australia is considering further targeted sanctions intended to deter Israeli settlement expansion and violence in the West Bank. Wisely, she has declined to follow Britain, France and Canada into a blanket prohibition on trade connected with Israeli settlements. The proposed Australian targets have not yet been publicly identified. That distinction between carefully directed sanctions and the wider punishment of a country is not merely technical. It should be the centre of the debate.

There should be no indulgence toward violent West Bank Jewish extremists. Palestinians have been attacked, intimidated and driven from their homes by extremists who too often appear confident that the state will not restrain them. Australians who support Israel should be able to say this without qualification or embarrassment. Friendship does not require silence.

Australia has already sanctioned Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, together with Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Norway, over what the governments described as incitement of violence against Palestinians. If credible evidence points to additional individuals or organisations, Australia has every right to act. Those who commit violence, finance it or organise it should face personal consequences.

But sanctions should be an instrument, not an emotion.

Before imposing them, the Australian government should answer three questions. What precise behaviour is Australia trying to change? Who will actually bear the cost? And what Australian interest might be damaged in return?