Published on-line in the Australian Financial Review on Monday 4 August under the heading ‘Recognising Palestine no longer a bridge too far. But conditions apply’
Credit: Janie Barrett
Australian public opinion in favour of recognition of a state of Palestine is clear. Continuing opposition could merely hasten a form of recognition that would be tantamount to an empty gesture. What is now required is for those genuinely seeking a two-state solution, that enables Palestinians and Israelis to live side-by-side in peace, is to provide a robust, realist edge to what Foreign Minister Wong calls the “matter of when, not if” decision.
What matters now are the conditions, the ‘riders’ that go with recognition, and their enforcement.
There are two camps debating the toss. First, those who say recognising the state of Palestine is a necessary and critical step that will lead to achieving peace in the region and reforming Palestinian institutions, culture and mindset. Second, there are those who say any move by Australia will change nothing on the ground and will simply give Hamas an opportunity to regroup, rearm and start another war with Israel at some point in the future, as they have pledged to do. It’s time to breach the gap between the two sides. How to use recognition as a means of achieving the defeat of extremism on both sides to bring peace to the region.
Something unique is happening. The 1933 Montevideo Convention outlines the criteria for statehood, subsequently endorsed by the UN, namely: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter relations with other states.
In November 1947, a Jewish State and an Arab Palestinian state were mandated by the UN. This was not an act of recognition of either State, which did not yet exist under the Montevideo principles, but rather a policy statement by the UN General Assembly about how the conflict should be resolved. At that point, boundaries were not agreed by the contesting parties, and the government of the Palestinians was subsumed by its Arab neighbours who sought to destroy the fledging Jewish state.
But that was then, this is now.
Support for a two-state solution must not be allowed to reward Hamas which is irrevocably opposed to two States. That terror outfit in its thirty years has sought the annihilation of Israel, Jews, and the imposition of an Islamicist, jihadist state, “from the river to the sea”. Prior to October 7th, the Saudis were edging towards an Abraham Accord with Israel which would have included concrete steps to achieve Palestinian statehood. Hamas fought to destroy that deal.
However, Israel’s credibility is undermined by too many of its Ministers and Knesset members calling for starvation, occupation and annexations in Gaza and the West Bank, and marauding criminal gangs of settlers are torching Palestinian villages under the supervision of cabinet ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich who run the police and military on the West Bank.
Thanks to them, Israel’s friends are beleaguered across the world.
The Israeli government’s decision in early March to stop the flow of aid into Gaza was designed to prevent Hamas stealing aid but has brought unacceptable deprivation to the civilian population. Now there are rumours that the new IDF chief, General Eyal Zamir, might resign due to disagreements with Netanyahu and his ministers on Gaza strategy. It is a total mess.
Israel is now facing three options, all varieties of bad: 1. End the war with its tail between its legs with no deal or agreement allowing Hamas to retain control of parts of Gaza and regroup and rearm; 2. Continue to prosecute the war until “total victory” with all its terrible consequences, loss of life, worsening international standing, continued suffering and possible death of the hostages; 3. Trump rides to the rescue, somehow, winning Saudis to the table and persuading Netanyahu to accept a two state solution “eventually”.
Hope is not a strategy. It takes both sides to make peace. What Australia demands of the Palestinians is at least as important as what we demand of the Israelis.
Just as Israel must allow the free flow of aid into Gaza immediately, friends of the Palestinians need to require them, as a precondition of recognition, to release the hostages, disarm Hamas, terminate pensions for terrorists who have killed Jews; overhaul their education system to end demonising Jews and Israelis; and unequivocally endorse the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish majority state, within secure and agreed borders.
There may be further conditions which will need to be met post-recognition, such as the introduction of a stabilisation force in Gaza, the formation of a provisional government that excludes those who reject Israel’s right to exist, the holding of free and fair elections when the situation stabilises and a resumption of direct final status talks.
Additionally, relief that addresses the vulnerability of the ingress and egress approaches to food distribution points is urgent. Dismantling many settlers’ outposts must happen. Policing settler violence needs calling out too.
Progress on all these needs to be monitored and verified. Most importantly, Australia must specify that it reserves the right to withdraw recognition if the conditions are not met.
There can be no Palestinian terror state on Israel’s border. But the current situation cannot continue, either. Last week’s declaration by Arab states coordinated by the Saudis is encouraging. It demanded that Hamas disarm and leave Gaza. It even condemned the Palestinian Authority curriculum. This inspired statement is very detailed and constructive. It needs the PA to step up to the plate and rid itself of corruption and incompetence.
I suspect Prime Minister Albanese knows recognition must be conditional – and frankly, reversible if dishonoured. This is the way forward toward achieving real peace and security – – instead of mere gesture politics.
Postscript
Not everyone needs to agree. But supporters of Israel (and the entirely reasonable cause of Palestinian self-determination) cannot shy away from the debate on recognition and its terms.
The photo published with my article should not be construed as if I wrote my piece with the Sydney Harbour Bridge protest (on 3 August) in mind. The Hamas flags and portraits held aloft of the Ayatollah Khamenei were disturbing aspects of that demonstration.
But that’s another story.
