In my view, the considerations driving the government are almost entirely about managing domestic politics and avoiding a fresh bit of trouble with the Trump administration in Washington.
My guess would be that if the British Labour government of Sir Keir Starmer extends formal diplomatic recognition to Palestine, the Albanese government will follow. Whether done with Britain, or alone, such a move would be a mistake.
The PM was nonetheless at something approaching his best in his discussion of this issue with David Speers on the ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday. Albanese said, inter alia: “How do you exclude Hamas from an involvement there? How do you ensure that a Palestinian state operates in an appropriate way which does not threaten the existence of Israel? So we (won’t) make any decision as a gesture. We will do it as a way forward if the circumstances are met.”
That’s perfectly sensible. If the government sticks to these requirements it will logically go back to the position of seeing the full, formal, diplomatic recognition of Palestine as something that can only satisfy the PM’s own criteria if it comes at the end of a negotiated agreement with Israel.
The big conceptual change the Albanese government made from the position of previous Australian governments has been outlined numerous times by Foreign Minister Penny Wong. It is that early recognition of a Palestinian state, though no such state exists, could be part of the peace process, could accelerate the peace process.
This defies all logic and sense. The only idea behind it is that there’s a perfect two-state solution all ready to go, and only the intransigence of Israel stops it coming about.
In fact, if you include the initial UN partition into an Arab and a Jewish state in 1947 – rejected by the Arab world, which immediately launched a war of attempted annihilation on Israel – Palestinians have been offered a full state on four occasions. They’ve rejected it each time.
For, as Albanese himself says, it’s necessary that such a state not pose a threat to Israel. That means no anti-Israel terrorism from that state, a complete acceptance of Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state, complete respect for its negotiated borders and an end of all other claims against Israel. One practical problem is that any Palestinian leader who agreed to a state on anything like those terms would certainly be assassinated by Islamist extremists.
Therefore, for the moment, no two-state solution is available, although it’s the only solution in the long run. But you probably need 20 years of normalisation before you get to peace treaty territory.
Albanese is entitled to put public pressure on the Israeli government over the appalling humanitarian circumstances now prevailing in Gaza. Albanese’s government has, counterproductively, walked away from Australia’s historic friendship with Israel and undoubtedly Canberra now has less influence in Jerusalem than at any time since the disastrous Whitlam government.
Nonetheless, Israel is committing a grave moral and political error in its policies in Gaza today The overwhelming moral responsibility for the truly appalling suffering and tragedy of the people of Gaza rests with Hamas.
Remember, Hamas is a proscribed, deeply anti-Semitic, terrorist organisation, of grotesque blood-lust, funded since its inception by Iran. It shares with Tehran the desire to wipe Israel off the map.
The Hamas terrorist atrocities of October 7, 2023, were among the most depraved and savage the world has seen. Every civilised human being stood with Israel at that point. But Hamas conducted that barbarous savagery as an act of considered policy. It foretold that Israel would make a massive response and it also foretold that Israel would suffer gravely in its international standing as a result.
Even now, Hamas could end the terrible suffering of the people it claims to represent simply by releasing the 19 or 20 Israeli hostages believed to be alive that it’s still holding.
However, while the savagery of Hamas required a strong Israeli reaction, that doesn’t absolve Israel morally or politically for the responsibility it now has for the two million people in Gaza, and their basic human needs for food, etc.
Israel has no good options in Gaza but it must choose a policy and implement it. The Netanyahu government, to the chagrin of the Israel Defence Forces, has never outlined what it plans for Gaza after the fighting is over.
If Israel withdraws right now, Hamas reasserts control, which is plainly unacceptable. On the other hand, the international community would go berserk if Israel reoccupied Gaza altogether, but at least then Israel would be responsible for Gaza’s administration, providing food, education, vaccinations, etc.
There’s talk of an international Arab peacekeeping force but surely it’s acutely unlikely any Arab government would ever shoot a Gaza terrorist to prevent them attacking Israel. Some Israelis talk of empowering local clans to fight Hamas, but that would be chaotic. Benjamin Netanyahu hates the option, but eventually it will probably be necessary for the Palestinian Authority, hopefully reformed, to resume administration of Gaza.
Israel cannot allow the present situation to continue.
● In Monday’s Australian Financial Review, columnist James Curran wrote, rather confusingly, that, regarding China, I had demanded of the Albanese government “a return to the ‘drums of war’ rhetoric characteristic of the Morrison years” and similar vulgar abuse.
I’ve always enjoyed Curran’s columns. His extravagant reshaping of facts to fit his fanciful notions of the way the world works are always entertaining. But this is such a blatant, basic error of fact as to require correction.
He attributes to me views that are the opposite of those I hold. Time without number I’ve criticised Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton for wildly overdoing war rhetoric regarding China. As recently as May 17 in The Weekend Australian, I wrote: “Scott Morrison and then defence minister Dutton frequently talked of war with China … it’s extremely irresponsible to talk about going to war unless such talk is necessary to justify great national expenditure or mobilisation.”
In the same piece I criticised the Morrison government’s “cynical rhetoric”. I’ve made these points many times. It’s true I’m more of a realist on Beijing than Curran is, but I’ve never supported drums of war talk. Curran has every right to disagree with me. But at least disagree with views I actually hold. He has an obligation to his readers to get the most elementary facts right.
More Coverage
Chalmers is already gaming ‘reform’ roundtable
Chalmers is perfectly entitled to make political comments. But it’s another thing to claim to have delivered ‘a better living standard’ when per capita GDP has declined in seven of the past nine quarters.
In national interest, China must be a key climate ally
We can outlast warmongers like Putin on the battlefield, but we cannot outrun the far greater existential collapse of climate change.
The Albanese government is likely to extend formal diplomatic recognition of a Palestinian state some time in this term of parliament, though not as soon as at the United Nations General Assembly in September.