On 1 March 2019, DFAT’s Australian Trade and Defence Office in Israel opened in West Jerusalem in the ‘WeWork’ office complex at the address, King George 20.
Six years later, on 29 October 2025, more than two years after the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and subsequent Israeli onslaught in Gaza, Austrade entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for space in the ‘Tel Aviv chancery’. On 31 October 2025, WeWork were informed of the decision not to renew the Jerusalem licence with the termination effective from 31 December 2025.
Austrade staff in Israel were told of the change on 6 November 2025 and the Austrade website was updated on 7 November 2025 with the Tel Aviv office location details: within the Australian Embassy in the Bank Discount Tower at 23 Yehuda Halevi Street (corner of Herzl Street), 28th Floor, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Austender documents published on 20 June 2025 confirm that the licence agreement with WeWork Israel was renewed for the period 1 July 2025 – 31 December 2025 for the sum of $26,185.75 however FOI documents exclusively obtained by Declassified Australia reveal that just over two weeks later on 8 July 2025 Austrade prepared ‘Israel Changes External Talking Points to be used in discussion with external stakeholders such as clients, state governments, and other government agencies’ confirming that:
‘Austrade regularly reviews the risks and threats to our staff and offices. With the current uncertainty in the Middle East, Austrade has decided to relocate our staff from Jerusalem to the Australian Embassy in Tel Aviv. The relocation to Tel Aviv will mean that our staff will be able to be better supported by the Ambassador and staff in the Embassy. Austrade will always put the safety and security of our staff first and this decision has been made for these reasons.
There are no changes to the delivery of our client services. Staff will be able to travel to Jerusalem as required to engage with clients and stakeholders in person. Austrade will retain the same staff footprint and commitment to enhancing the Australia-Israel trading relationship as it does today.
EXPLAINING GETTING MORE AUSTRALIAN BUSINESSES INTO ISRAEL
The talking points anticipated the question ‘If raised – why has this decision been made now?’ with a prepared response:
‘As you know, the security situation in the Middle East has deteriorated in recent weeks. Considering the current security situation, the risk of running an Austrade office in a serviced office was no longer within tolerance. Under the Prime Minister’s Directive on Guidelines for Management of the Australian Government Presence Overseas, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is responsible for all aspects of security policy affecting Australian missions. As such, to ensure Austrade could appropriately manage the changing threats and risks to our staff it was determined that the most appropriate location for the staff was in the Australian Embassy in Tel Aviv.’
Presumably the ‘deteriorated’ ‘security situation in the Middle East’ Austrade refers to is the 12‑day conflict between Israel and Iran which erupted on June 13, 2025, after Israel launched air strikes on Iranian military and nuclear sites, killing key nuclear scientists, military commanders and civilians. Yet Iran’s retaliatory missiles and drone strikes hit Israeli cities including Tel Aviv, the very relocation site.
A further response prepared for the question ‘If raised – what impact will this change have on our clients?’ was: ‘We remain committed to supporting Australian businesses in Israel. Austrade will retain the same staff footprint in Israel and our focus on trade and investment between Australian and Israel will continue.’
Ignored in these talking points is the fact that the Australian government is required to focus on the existential illegality of the Israeli presence itself in the occupied Palestinian territories, rather than just focusing on specific, isolated violations of international law that occur within that occupation.
On 1 October 2025, Chris Sidoti, Commissioner on the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, referring to Australia’s legal obligations under international law, pointed out that Australia should end all military and trade cooperation with the State of Israel.
He referred to Austrade establishing a trade and defence office in Jerusalem in 2019 to promote defence cooperation and trade with the state of Israel and said that office should be closed and any defence cooperation components of Australian diplomacy in the Australian embassy in Tel Aviv should be ended as well as anything that promotes trade in areas that are questionable.
In his December 2024 legal opinion ‘Illegality of Israel’s presence in the Palestinian Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in the light of the 2024 Occupied Palestinian Territory Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, and consequences for third States and the European Union’, Dr Ralphe Wilde, Professor of Internation Law at University College London, had already confirmed that:
‘The Israeli presence in the OPT is linked to the Israeli state, including its military, and the Israeli economy and society, including cultural, sporting and educational life, in a complex and multifaced manner so as to be factually and legally inextricable. In consequence, when it comes to the behaviour of third States, and the EU, and all other actors, in their relations with the Israeli state, including the Israeli military, the Israeli economy, and other Israeli actors, including Israeli companies, and universities, it is impossible, because of the way things operate, to meaningfully disaggregate relations that are, one way or another, connected to the Israeli presence in the OPT, and relations that are entirely free of such a connection. When it comes, then, to the obligations that third States and the EU must comply with in these relations as a consequence of the illegal nature of the presence, such obligations have to address the relations as a general matter.’
In other words, the Australian government had long known that there was a legal responsibility to respond appropriately to Israel’s decades-long occupation of Palestine and not seek to deepen trade or military ties.
In that context, with Australia’s legal obligations clearly set out in the ICJ’s July 2024 Advisory Opinion – which the United Nations General Assembly endorsed in September 2024 – it is astounding that a 3 November 2025 Question Time Brief titled ‘Austrade’s Office in Israel, provided to the Trade and Tourism Minister’s Office, confirmed (emphasis added) that:
‘Austrade’s team in Israel focuses on building trade and investment partnerships between Australian business and Israeli industry. Austrade has closed its office in Jerusalem and has moved the affected staff to our Embassy in Tel Aviv. Austrade’s team in Israel supports economic engagement between Australia and Israel, working with Australian exporters and potential Israeli investors.
The Question Time Brief anticipates the question, ‘Does Austrade support the export of defence material to Israel?’ with the prepared response:
‘As noted repeatedly by the Hon Richard Marles MP, Deputy Prime Minister, and Senator the Hon Penny Wong, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Australia has not supplied weapons to Israel for at least the past 5 years. The legislation and the operation of the export licence process is a matter for the Department of Defence. Austrade only supports Australian defence exporters with Department of Defence-approved export licences for their products and services or who are otherwise compliant with Australia’s stringent defence export control regime that ensures military and dual use items are used responsibly outside Australia.
It goes on: ‘Austrade will continue to support contacts in Jerusalem with regular travel to the location…Austrade does not undertake bilateral military-to-military representations. Engagement with Israel on defence and security matters is undertaken by a defence attaché based in the Australian Embassy in Tel Aviv. Austrade consults with the Australian Defence Attache in Tel Aviv on all defence industry export enquiries.’
HOW THE ALBANESE GOVERNMENT IGNORES ITS LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES
It is worth noting that in December 2025 Pat Conroy, Minister for Defence Industry, stated that, “one thing I am working with the Chief of Defence Force on is that one of the key performance indicators for our defence attaches in foreign nations is (that) we’ll be going to local Australian industry in that market and saying, did the defence attache help make connections? Were they active? Did they help sell? And that will be part of their performance assessment for that year…”
Not only does the Question Time Brief contain another ad nauseum repetition of the infamously misleading ‘not supplied weapons to Israel for at least the past 5 years’, Declassified Australia has extensively detailed the ongoing military ties between Australia and Israel, it also reflects the government’s lack of candour in omitting to mention the risk to staff of staying in Jerusalem. But more importantly, the Headline Response confirms that, ‘Australia’s team in Israel focuses on building trade and investment partnerships between Australian business and Israeli industry‘.
At the very least that statement means that if Australia is complying with international law, or even pretending to comply, it must be making a careful assessment of the legality of each and every of its decisions about facilitating such partnerships.
Of the nineteen documents Austrade identified as being caught by Declassified Australia’s FOI request, thirteen were withheld in full on the basis that, ‘Whilst the decision to close the Jerusalem office and relocate Austrade’s operations to Tel Aviv was made for purely operational reasons, as Austrade is an Australian Government agency, there is a risk that this decision could be wrongly perceived as being politically motivated, and/or of signalling a change in foreign policy…if disclosed (together or in isolation), incorrectly cause speculation regarding the Australian Government’s position on the status of Jerusalem, bringing a risk of creating unnecessary uncertainty or confusion around the Australian Government’s foreign policy.’
Put aside the obvious inference that our government makes decisions that can’t withstand the heat public scrutiny would generate. The documents produced show no evidence that complying with international legal obligations played any part whatsoever in the decision to move the office. In fact, they point to a complete failure of the entire decision-making process to take those matters into account. Moving staff who were engaging in un-diplomatic trade and commercial activities from West Jerusalem to the ‘protection’ of the diplomatic status of the Australian embassy, apart from being questionable diplomatically and legally ineffective to confer diplomatic status on those staff, does not affect those legal obligations. The government’s stated intention to continue the activities it describes demonstrates a contumelious disregard for international law by a country that piously proclaims its adherence to it.
Overzealous redactions mean it can’t be determined from the documents whether the relocation was at least partly prompted by the fact that its office stood on land of undetermined status in which Israel is not sovereign. Of course if it was, the government might be concerned that publication of an affirmative answer to that question might prompt uncomfortable blowback from certain pro-Israel lobby groups who assert Israeli sovereignty notwithstanding first, Australia’s publicly stated position that ‘Jerusalem is a final status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between Palestine and Israel’, whereas under international law the ‘final status’ will be determined by the International Court of Justice, and second, that most states which recognise Israel as a state do not have their embassies to Israel in Jerusalem, including West Jerusalem, because of the legal requirement not to recognise an invalid claim to sovereignty over that city.
Australia apparently has no such compunction.
_
Do you have more information about this story?
If you have information about this story or other important matters of public interest, you may contact the author in confidence through the link below:
_
Before you go…
If you appreciate Declassified Australia’s investigations, remember that it costs both time and money. Join over 11,000 followers and get our newsletter for updates.
We’d really appreciate if you could subscribe to Declassified Australia to support our ongoing investigations. Thank you.
