The tragic death of Australian aid worker Lalzawmi “Zomi” Frankcom in Gaza on April 1, 2024, was a stark reminder of the human cost of conflict. Frankcom, working with World Central Kitchen (WCK), was killed alongside six colleagues when an Israeli airstrike struck their convoy near Deir al-Balah. The incident sent shockwaves through the international humanitarian community and prompted an investigation by the Australian government, led by former Defence Force Chief Mark Binskin. However, as details of the investigation emerged, it became clear that Australia’s review heavily relied on the internal findings of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), raising serious concerns about its independence and credibility.
The Australian Investigation: A Dependent Framework
The Australian government’s review was ostensibly intended to establish accountability and ensure justice for Frankcom’s death. Yet, the framework of this investigation relied almost entirely on the IDF’s internal inquiry. This dependence raises questions about the thoroughness and impartiality of the Australian investigation.
Reliance on IDF Evidence
The IDF’s internal investigation concluded that the airstrike was the result of an operational failure, citing misidentification and procedural lapses. It claimed the convoy was mistaken for a military target due to intelligence errors and denied any deliberate targeting of aid workers. While the IDF acknowledged responsibility for these failures and issued an apology, the Australian review largely accepted these findings without conducting an independent verification of the evidence.
Australia’s reliance on the IDF’s internal report, supplemented by limited satellite imagery and testimony from survivors, highlights a fundamental flaw: the investigation lacked access to the site of the attack and independent intelligence sources. Instead, it depended on the very institution implicated in the incident to provide key details.
Limited On-the-Ground Access
Due to security concerns and restricted access to Gaza, Australian investigators did not visit the site of the airstrike. This limitation meant they were unable to independently verify critical aspects of the IDF’s account, such as the convoy’s exact location, its visibility as a humanitarian mission, or the context of the strike. Without direct evidence from the scene, the Australian review was confined to second-hand information, much of it filtered through the lens of the IDF.
Diplomatic Sensitivities
Australia’s close diplomatic ties with Israel undoubtedly influenced the tone and scope of the investigation. Rather than risk alienating an important ally, the Australian government appeared to prioritize maintaining the bilateral relationship over pursuing an uncompromising search for truth. This approach may explain why the investigation stopped short of critically scrutinizing the IDF’s narrative or calling for an international inquiry.
The IDF Narrative: A Self-Serving Account?
The IDF’s explanation of the incident contains several elements that warrant scepticism. These include claims about the convoy’s misidentification, the context of the strike, and the steps taken to prevent civilian casualties.
Misidentification of the Convoy
The IDF argued that the WCK convoy was mistaken for a military target due to faulty intelligence. However, humanitarian convoys typically operate under clear protocols, such as visible markings and prior coordination with local authorities, to avoid such mistakes. If these protocols were followed, as WCK stated, how did the IDF’s intelligence fail to recognize the convoy’s civilian nature?
Critics have pointed out that the IDF has a history of framing civilian casualties as the result of intelligence errors, often as a means of deflecting accountability. The Australian review’s acceptance of this explanation without independent corroboration undermines its credibility.
Context of the Strike
The IDF justified the strike by emphasizing the intensity of the ongoing conflict and the operational pressures faced by its forces. While these factors may provide context, they do not excuse the failure to distinguish between civilian and military targets. By framing the incident as an unfortunate byproduct of war, the IDF’s narrative seeks to shift attention away from systemic issues within its operational protocols.
Steps to Prevent Civilian Casualties
The IDF claimed that it takes extensive measures to minimize harm to civilians, including advanced surveillance and intelligence-gathering. Yet, the death of Frankcom and her colleagues calls these assertions into question. If such measures were indeed in place, how did they fail so catastrophically in this instance? The Australian investigation did not adequately probe these inconsistencies, instead accepting the IDF’s assurances at face value.
Contrasting the Response to Oscar Jenkins: Hypocrisy and Bias
While the Australian government’s response to Lalzawmi Frankcom’s death highlighted a reluctance to confront Israel, its handling of the case involving Australian national Oscar Jenkins, a mercenary captured in Ukraine, reveals a starkly different approach—one marked by hypocrisy and blatant bias.
The Case of Oscar Jenkins
Oscar Jenkins, an Australian citizen who travelled to Ukraine to kill Russians, was captured in eastern Ukraine while fighting alongside Ukrainian forces. Although Jenkins’ involvement as a mercenary violated international laws against participation in foreign conflicts, the Australian government quickly framed him as a victim of Russian aggression. Reports surfaced—based on unverified Ukrainian claims and a single Australian military official—alleging that Jenkins had been executed by Russian forces. This narrative dominated Australian media and was amplified by government officials, despite the absence of concrete evidence.
The Role of Fake Videos and Unsubstantiated Claims
The claims about Jenkins’ execution were bolstered by fake videos circulating online, purportedly showing his death. These videos, later debunked, were used to paint Russia as a violator of human rights. Despite the lack of credible evidence, the Australian government issued strong condemnations of Russia, accusing it of war crimes and demanding accountability. This rapid response contrasted sharply with its muted reaction to Frankcom’s death.
Ignoring Jenkins’ Role as a Mercenary
One glaring omission in the Australian government’s narrative was Jenkins’ status as a mercenary. Under international law, mercenaries are not afforded the same protections as regular combatants. By whitewashing Jenkins’ role and portraying him as an innocent victim, the government sidestepped uncomfortable questions about his motives and activities in Ukraine. This selective framing highlights a double standard in Australia’s approach to international incidents involving its citizens.
Hypocrisy in Government Responses
The stark differences in how the Australian government handled these two cases underscore its inconsistent and biased approach to international accountability. Several key factors highlight this hypocrisy:
Unequal Demands for Accountability
In Frankcom’s case, the Australian government accepted the IDF’s narrative and refrained from pressing for an independent investigation. In contrast, it aggressively condemned Russia based on unverified claims about Jenkins. This disparity suggests that Australia’s response to international incidents is influenced more by geopolitical alignments than a genuine commitment to justice.
Selective Outrage
The government’s swift condemnation of Russia for Jenkins’ alleged execution, despite the lack of evidence, contrasts sharply with its cautious and deferential tone toward Israel in Frankcom’s case. This selective outrage reveals a willingness to apply different standards of accountability depending on the country involved.
Prioritization of Geopolitical Alliances
Australia’s handling of these cases reflects its broader geopolitical priorities. By shielding Israel from criticism while vilifying Russia, the government has demonstrated a clear bias that undermines its credibility on the global stage. This approach also risks eroding trust among Australian citizens, who expect their government to uphold principles of fairness and justice.
The Need for a Consistent and Independent Approach
The contrasting responses to Lalzawmi Frankcom’s death and Oscar Jenkins’ capture highlight the urgent need for a more consistent and independent approach to international accountability. To restore credibility and ensure justice, the Australian government must:
- Adopt a Neutral Stance:
- Avoid letting geopolitical considerations dictate its responses to international incidents.
- Demand Independent Investigations:
- Insist on impartial, international inquiries into cases involving its citizens, rather than relying on the accounts of implicated parties.
- Uphold International Law:
- Hold all parties accountable to the same standards, regardless of their alliances or strategic importance.
- Promote Transparency:
- Provide clear and evidence-based explanations for its actions and statements in international cases.
The Australian government’s handling of Lalzawmi Frankcom’s death and Oscar Jenkins’ capture reveals a troubling pattern of bias and inconsistency. By relying on the IDF’s self-serving narrative in Frankcom’s case and uncritically accepting unverified Ukrainian claims in Jenkins’ case, Australia has undermined its commitment to justice and fairness.
If Australia is to regain its credibility on the international stage, it must adopt a principled and impartial approach to addressing incidents involving its citizens. This means holding all parties accountable to the same standards and prioritizing truth and justice over geopolitical interests. Only then can it ensure that the rights and dignity of its citizens are truly protected.
