C0980
Klaim
“Mengubah posisi suara secara diam-diam di PBB mengenai masalah Israel dan Palestina tanpa memberi tahu siapa pun.”
Sumber Asli: Matthew Davis
Dianalisis: 3 Feb 2026
Sumber Asli
✅ VERIFIKASI FAKTA
Pemerintahan Abbott memang mengubah posisi suara Australia mengenai dua resolusi Majelis Umum PBB yang berulang mengenai Israel dan Palestina pada November 2013, beralih dari "mendukung" menjadi "abstain" pada kedua resolusi [1][2].
The Abbott government did change Australia's voting position on two recurring United Nations General Assembly resolutions regarding Israel and Palestine in November 2013, switching from "in favour" to "abstain" on both resolutions [1][2].
Kedua resolusi tersebut adalah: 1. The two resolutions were:
1.
Resolusi yang menyerukan penghentian semua aktivitas permukiman Israel di wilayah yang diduduki sejak Juni 1967 [1][2] 2. A resolution calling for an end to all Israeli settlement activity in territories occupied since June 1967 [1][2]
2.
Resolusi yang menegaskan bahwa Konvensi Jenewa Keempat berlaku untuk wilayah-wilayah ini [1][2] Perubahan suara terjadi pada pertengahan November 2013, dengan Australia bergabung dengan 8 negara lain dalam abstain pada resolusi permukiman (sementara 158 negara mendukung), dan bergabung dengan 5 negara dalam abstain pada resolusi Konvensi Jenewa (sementara 160 negara mendukung) [3]. A resolution affirming that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to these territories [1][2]
The voting change occurred in mid-November 2013, with Australia joining 8 other countries in abstaining on the settlements resolution (while 158 countries voted in favour), and joining 5 countries in abstaining on the Geneva Convention resolution (while 160 countries voted in favour) [3].
Mengenai klaim "secara diam-diam" dan "tanpa memberi tahu siapa pun": Perubahan tidak diumumkan secara publik oleh pemerintah sebelum terjadi. Regarding the "secretly" and "without telling anyone" claims: The changes were not publicly announced by the government before they occurred.
Menurut pelaporan SMH, "tidak ada konferensi pers mengenai perubahan kebijakan Timur Tengah ini" dan komunitas Palestina tidak dikonsultasikan sebelumnya [3]. According to SMH reporting, "there have been no news conferences about these changes in Middle East policy" and the Palestinian community was not consulted beforehand [3].
Jurubicara urusan luar negeri oposisi Tanya Plibersek menyatakan dia "terkejut mendengar tentang perubahan...tanpa konfirmasi formal dari pemerintah" [3]. Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek stated she was "surprised to hear about the changes...with no formal confirmation from the government" [3].
Kepala Delegasi Umum Palestina untuk Australia, Izzat Abdulhadi, menyatakan "tidak ada transparansi dalam pendekatan mereka" [3]. The head of the General Delegation of Palestine to Australia, Izzat Abdulhadi, stated there was "no transparency in their approach" [3].
Namun, Lowy Institute mencatat perubahan tersebut "seperti yang diprediksi" berdasarkan pernyataan Koalisi saat berada di oposisi, dan Crikey melaporkan suara tersebut terjadi "dua minggu" sebelum berita SMH pecah [1][4]. However, the Lowy Institute notes the change was "as predicted" based on Coalition statements while in opposition, and Crikey reported the voting occurred "a fortnight" before the SMH story broke [1][4].
Konteks yang Hilang
**Perubahan suara bukan hal yang belum pernah terjadi dalam kebijakan luar negeri Australia.** Lowy Institute mendokumentasikan pola suara historis Australia mengenai resolusi-resolusi ini, menunjukkan bahwa antara 2004-2008 di bawah pemerintahan Howard, Australia baik menolak atau abstain pada resolusi yang sama [2].
**The voting change was not unprecedented in Australian foreign policy.** The Lowy Institute documented Australia's historical voting patterns on these resolutions, showing that between 2004-2008 under the Howard government, Australia either voted against or abstained on these same resolutions [2].
Periode 2009-2012 di bawah pemerintahan Labor (Rudd/Gillard) mewakili anomali dalam mendukung, bukan norma historis [2]. **Menteri Luar Negeri Julie Bishop memberikan rasional kebijakan.** Bishop menyatakan perubahan "mencerminkan kekhawatiran pemerintah bahwa resolusi-resolusi Timur Tengah harus seimbang. The 2009-2012 period under Labor governments (Rudd/Gillard) represented the anomaly of voting in favour, not the historical norm [2].
**Foreign Minister Julie Bishop provided a policy rationale.** Bishop stated the change "reflected the government's concern that Middle East resolutions should be balanced.
Pemerintah tidak akan mendukung resolusi yang sepihak dan yang menentukan hasil negosiasi status final di kedua belah pihak" [2]. **Sifat "diam-diam" ini sebagian disebabkan oleh waktu.** SMH mencatat suara-suara PBB "largi tidak diperhatikan dalam dua minggu terakhir karena media Australia terfokus pada krisis mata-mata Indonesia" [3]. **Ini adalah abstain, bukan penolakan.** Australia berpindah ke abstain daripada menolak resolusi-resolusi tersebut. The government will not support resolutions which are one-sided and which pre-judge the outcome of final status negotiations between the two sides" [2].
**The "quiet" nature was partly due to timing.** The SMH noted the UN votes "have largely gone unnoticed during the past fortnight as the Australian media has fixated on the Indonesian spying crisis" [3].
**This was abstention, not opposition.** Australia moved to abstain rather than voting against the resolutions.
Ini memposisikan Australia berbeda dari Israel, Amerika Serikat, dan Kanada, yang menolak [3]. This positioned Australia differently from Israel, the United States, and Canada, which voted against [3].
Penilaian Kredibilitas Sumber
Sumber aslinya adalah **Sydney Morning Herald (SMH)**, surat kabar metropolitan Australia utama yang dimiliki oleh Fairfax Media (sekarang Nine Entertainment Co.). - **Peringkat Kredibilitas:** Tinggi.
The original source is the **Sydney Morning Herald (SMH)**, a major Australian metropolitan newspaper owned by Fairfax Media (now Nine Entertainment Co.).
- **Credibility Rating:** High.
SMH adalah outlet berita arus utama dan mapan dengan standar jurnalisme profesional [5]. - **Penilaian Bias:** Media Bias/Fact Check memberi peringkat SMH sebagai "Sedikit Kiri" (-12% skor bias) dengan keandalan "Baik" [5]. - **Konteks Politik:** Sebagai publikasi Fairfax, SMH umumnya dianggap kiri-tengah, meskipun kurang partisan daripada outlet politik eksplisit. - **Penilaian:** Artikel SMH adalah pelaporan faktual dengan kutipan yang diatribusikan dan detail spesifik. SMH is a mainstream, established news outlet with professional journalism standards [5].
- **Bias Assessment:** Media Bias/Fact Check rates SMH as "Somewhat Left" leaning (-12% bias score) with "Good" reliability [5].
- **Political Context:** As a Fairfax publication, SMH is generally considered center-left, though less partisan than explicitly political outlets.
- **Assessment:** The SMH article is factual reporting with attributed quotes and specific details.
Penekanannya menyoroti sifat "diam-diam" dari perubahan dan kekecewaan Palestina, tetapi klaim faktual dapat diverifikasi melalui sumber lain termasuk Lowy Institute dan catatan parlemen [1][2]. The framing emphasizes the "quiet" nature of the change and Palestinian disappointment, but the factual claims are verifiable through other sources including the Lowy Institute and parliamentary records [1][2].
⚖️
Perbandingan Labor
**Apakah Labor melakukan hal yang serupa?** Pencarian dilakukan: "Labor government UN Israel Palestine voting position changes 2012" **Temuan:** Pemerintahan Labor di bawah Julia Gillard juga menghadapi perpecahan internal yang signifikan dan kontroversi mengenai suara PBB Israel-Palestina pada 2012.
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Search conducted: "Labor government UN Israel Palestine voting position changes 2012"
**Finding:** The Labor government under Julia Gillard also faced significant internal division and controversy over Israel-Palestine UN votes in 2012.
Pada November 2012, Perdana Menteri Gillard awalnya bermaksud menolak pemberian status pengamat Palestina di PBB (sejalan dengan Israel dan AS), tetapi ditekan oleh partai sendiri untuk mengubah posisi [6]. In November 2012, Prime Minister Gillard originally intended to vote AGAINST granting Palestine observer status at the UN (aligning with Israel and the US), but was pressured by her own party to change position [6].
Menurut berbagai sumber termasuk ABC News dan AFR, Gillard "dikalahkan" oleh faksi kiri Labor, mantan perdana menteri Bob Hawke, mantan menteri luar negeri Gareth Evans, dan anggota parlemen belakang yang mendukung kemerdekaan Palestina [6][7][8]. According to multiple sources including ABC News and AFR, Gillard was "rolled" by Labor's left faction, former prime minister Bob Hawke, former foreign minister Gareth Evans, and backbenchers who supported Palestinian statehood [6][7][8].
Pemerintahan Labor akhirnya abstain pada resolusi Majelis Umum PBB 67/19 yang memberikan Palestina status pengamat non-anggota—posisi yang mengecewakan baik pendukung kuat Israel (yang menginginkan suara "tidak") maupun pendukung kuat Palestina (yang menginginkan suara "ya") [6][7]. **Perbandingan:** Kedua pemerintah mengubah atau mempertimbangkan untuk mengubah posisi suara PBB mengenai masalah Israel-Palestina tanpa transparansi penuh atau konsultasi sebelumnya: - **Koalisi (2013):** Berubah dari mendukung menjadi abstain pada resolusi permukiman tanpa pengumuman publik - **Labor (2012):** Berubah dari menolak menjadi abstain pada status pengamat Palestina karena tekanan internal partai, meskipun Perdana Menteri lebih suka menolak Kedua perubahan mencerminkan politik internal kompleks kebijakan luar negeri Australia mengenai masalah ini, dan keduanya tidak sepenuhnya transparan sebelumnya. The Labor government ultimately abstained on the UN General Assembly resolution 67/19 granting Palestine non-member observer state status—a position that disappointed both strong Israel supporters (who wanted a "no" vote) and strong Palestine supporters (who wanted a "yes" vote) [6][7].
**Comparison:** Both governments changed or considered changing UN voting positions on Israel-Palestine issues without full transparency or advance consultation:
- **Coalition (2013):** Changed from supporting to abstaining on settlements resolutions without public announcement
- **Labor (2012):** Changed from opposing to abstaining on Palestine observer status due to internal party pressure, despite the Prime Minister's preference
Both changes reflected the complex internal politics of Australian foreign policy on this issue, and neither was fully transparent beforehand.
🌐
Perspektif Seimbang
Klaim bahwa pemerintahan Abbott "secara diam-diam mengubah posisi suara" secara teknis akurat karena tidak ada pengumuman publik atau konsultasi sebelum suara terjadi [3][4].
The claim that the Abbott government "secretly changed voting position" is technically accurate in that there was no public announcement or consultation before the votes occurred [3][4].
Namun, penyajian ini mengabaikan konteks penting: **Konteks historis:** Posisi suara Australia telah bervariasi di berbagai pemerintahan. However, this framing omits important context:
**Historical context:** Australia's voting position had varied across governments.
Pemerintahan Howard (1996-2007) biasanya abstain atau menolak resolusi-resolusi ini. The Howard government (1996-2007) typically abstained or voted against these resolutions.
Pemerintahan Labor Rudd/Gillard (2007-2013) bergeser untuk mendukung. The Rudd/Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013) shifted to voting in favour.
Pemerintahan Abbott mengembalikan ke posisi sebelum 2007 [2]. The Abbott government was reverting to the pre-2007 position [2].
Seperti yang dicatat oleh Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, pemerintahan Abbott "kembali ke posisi Howard/Downer" [3]. **Justifikasi kebijakan:** Pemerintah memberikan rasional untuk perubahan—bahwa resolusi-resolusi "sepihak" dan menentukan hasil negosiasi status final [2]. As the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council noted, the Abbott government was "reverting to the Howard/Downer position" [3].
**Policy justification:** The government provided a rationale for the change—that the resolutions were "one-sided" and pre-judged final status negotiations [2].
Meskipun kritikus mungkin tidak setuju dengan alasan ini, ini mewakili posisi kebijakan luar negeri yang sah dipegang oleh berbagai pemerintah Barat. **Pola di berbagai pemerintahan:** Kedua partai besar telah memodifikasi posisi PBB Israel-Palestina berdasarkan dinamika politik internal. While critics may disagree with this reasoning, it represents a legitimate foreign policy position held by multiple Western governments.
**Pattern across governments:** Both major parties have modified Israel-Palestine UN positions based on internal political dynamics.
Pemberontakan internal Labor pada 2012 mengenai suara status pengamat Palestina menunjukkan bahwa masalah ini menghasilkan tekanan serupa terlepas dari partai yang berkuasa [6][7]. **Apa yang dimaksud dengan "diam-diam":** Meskipun tidak ada konferensi pers atau pengumuman formal, Menteri Luar Negeri Bishop menjelaskan rasional setelah fakta ketika ditanya [2]. The 2012 Labor internal revolt on the Palestine observer state vote demonstrates that this issue generates similar pressures regardless of which party is in power [6][7].
**What constitutes "secret":** While there was no press conference or formal announcement, Foreign Minister Bishop did explain the rationale after the fact when questioned [2].
Penundaan dalam liputan media (sekitar dua minggu) sebagian disebabkan oleh krisis mata-mata Indonesia yang mendominasi berita utama [3][4]. **Konteks kunci:** Perubahan ini tidak unik atau belum pernah terjadi sebelumnya—ini mewakili pengembalian ke pola suara Australia sebelum 2007, dan kedua partai besar telah menyesuaikan posisi Israel-Palestina mereka sebagai respons terhadap tekanan politik internal. The delay in media coverage (approximately two weeks) was partly due to the Indonesian spying crisis dominating headlines [3][4].
**Key context:** This change was not unique or unprecedented—it represented a return to Australia's pre-2007 voting pattern, and both major parties have adjusted their Israel-Palestine positions in response to internal political pressures.
SEBAGIAN BENAR
6.0
/ 10
Pemerintahan Abbott memang mengubah posisi suara PBB Australia mengenai resolusi Israel-Palestina pada November 2013 tanpa pengumuman publik sebelumnya atau konsultasi dengan pihak yang terkena dampak.
The Abbott government did change Australia's UN voting position on Israel-Palestine resolutions in November 2013 without advance public announcement or consultation with affected parties.
Inti faktual dari klaim ini akurat. This factual core of the claim is accurate.
Namun, karakterisasi sebagai "diam-diam" dan implikasi perilaku yang tidak biasa atau belum pernah terjadi sebelumnya menyesatkan. However, the characterization as "secret" and the implication of unusual or unprecedented behavior is misleading.
Perubahan tersebut: 1. The change:
1.
Kembali ke posisi pemerintahan Howard sebelum 2007 daripada mewakili penyimpangan radikal dari sejarah kebijakan luar negeri Australia [2] 2. Reverted to the Howard government's pre-2007 position rather than representing a radical departure from Australian foreign policy history [2]
2.
Konsisten dengan pernyataan Koalisi saat berada di oposisi [2][4] 3. Was consistent with Coalition statements while in opposition [2][4]
3.
Mengikuti pola di mana kedua partai besar menyesuaikan posisi Israel-Palestina berdasarkan politik internal (seperti yang dilakukan Labor pada 2012) [6][7] 4. Followed a pattern where both major parties adjust Israel-Palestine positions based on internal politics (as Labor did in 2012) [6][7]
4.
Dijelaskan oleh Menteri Luar Negeri ketika ditanya, daripada disembunyikan [2] Klaim ini mengabaikan bahwa pemerintahan Labor juga menghadapi kontroversi mengenai mengubah (atau dipaksa mengubah) posisi PBB mereka mengenai masalah Israel-Palestina karena tekanan internal partai pada 2012. Was explained by the Foreign Minister when questioned, rather than being concealed [2]
The claim omits that the Labor government also faced controversy over changing (or being forced to change) its UN position on Israel-Palestine issues due to internal party pressure in 2012.
Skor Akhir
6.0
/ 10
SEBAGIAN BENAR
Pemerintahan Abbott memang mengubah posisi suara PBB Australia mengenai resolusi Israel-Palestina pada November 2013 tanpa pengumuman publik sebelumnya atau konsultasi dengan pihak yang terkena dampak.
The Abbott government did change Australia's UN voting position on Israel-Palestine resolutions in November 2013 without advance public announcement or consultation with affected parties.
Inti faktual dari klaim ini akurat. This factual core of the claim is accurate.
Namun, karakterisasi sebagai "diam-diam" dan implikasi perilaku yang tidak biasa atau belum pernah terjadi sebelumnya menyesatkan. However, the characterization as "secret" and the implication of unusual or unprecedented behavior is misleading.
Perubahan tersebut: 1. The change:
1.
Kembali ke posisi pemerintahan Howard sebelum 2007 daripada mewakili penyimpangan radikal dari sejarah kebijakan luar negeri Australia [2] 2. Reverted to the Howard government's pre-2007 position rather than representing a radical departure from Australian foreign policy history [2]
2.
Konsisten dengan pernyataan Koalisi saat berada di oposisi [2][4] 3. Was consistent with Coalition statements while in opposition [2][4]
3.
Mengikuti pola di mana kedua partai besar menyesuaikan posisi Israel-Palestina berdasarkan politik internal (seperti yang dilakukan Labor pada 2012) [6][7] 4. Followed a pattern where both major parties adjust Israel-Palestine positions based on internal politics (as Labor did in 2012) [6][7]
4.
Dijelaskan oleh Menteri Luar Negeri ketika ditanya, daripada disembunyikan [2] Klaim ini mengabaikan bahwa pemerintahan Labor juga menghadapi kontroversi mengenai mengubah (atau dipaksa mengubah) posisi PBB mereka mengenai masalah Israel-Palestina karena tekanan internal partai pada 2012. Was explained by the Foreign Minister when questioned, rather than being concealed [2]
The claim omits that the Labor government also faced controversy over changing (or being forced to change) its UN position on Israel-Palestine issues due to internal party pressure in 2012.
📚 SUMBER DAN KUTIPAN (8)
-
1
Coalition takes a pro-Israel turn, no one notices for weeks
The Abbott government has changed tack on the Middle East, taking a more strident pro-Israel approach at the UN in the past fortnight. So why have they kept so quiet about it, and why aren't questions being asked?
Crikey -
2
Israel-Palestine: Australia changes government, changes UN vote
The Abbott Government has, as predicted, changed some votes on recurring Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolutions at the UN General Assembly.
Lowyinstitute -
3
Tony Abbott quietly shifts UN position to support Israeli settlements, upsetting Palestinians
The Abbott government has swung its support further behind Israel at the expense of Palestine, giving tacit approval to controversial activities including the expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
4
Star chamber Government scuttles transparency & reverses Rudd UN decision on Israel/Palestine
Indymedia Org
-
5
The Sydney Morning Herald - Bias and Credibility
LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording
Media Bias/Fact Check -
6
Australia to abstain from Palestinian vote
Australia will abstain from a vote later this week on whether the Palestinian territories should be granted observer status at the United Nations.
Abc Net -
7
How Gillard was forced to back down on Palestine vote
In the end, Prime Minister Julia Gillard was mugged by Labor’s old guard on a crucial United Nations vote on Palestine.
Australian Financial Review -
8
Gillard rolled on Palestine
PM forced to abandon her personal opposition to Palestinians winning a seat in the UN - despite threatening to exercise a prime ministerial veto and demand Australia reject the bid.
The Sydney Morning Herald
Metodologi Skala Penilaian
1-3: SALAH
Secara faktual salah atau fabrikasi jahat.
4-6: SEBAGIAN
Ada kebenaran tetapi konteks hilang atau menyimpang.
7-9: SEBAGIAN BESAR BENAR
Masalah teknis kecil atau masalah redaksi.
10: AKURAT
Terverifikasi sempurna dan adil secara kontekstual.
Metodologi: Penilaian ditentukan melalui referensi silang catatan pemerintah resmi, organisasi pemeriksa fakta independen, dan dokumen sumber primer.