Sanction Israel and recognise Palestine: here are the steps Australia should take next on Gaza
It is rare for an Australian prime minister to make such unambiguous statements on international law matters, especially with respect to the conduct of a friend such as Israel. These comments are the latest in a series of observations over the past year, whether they have taken the form of joint prime ministerial statements with Canada and New Zealand, or the statement issued on Friday which said: 'Gaza is in the grip of a humanitarian catastrophe. Israel's denial of aid and the killing of civilians, including children, seeking access to water and food cannot be defended or ignored.'
The time has come for the Albanese government to do more than just issue statements decrying breaches of international law. Ample scope exists under Australian law to impose autonomous sanctions on Israel to make clear its objections to the ongoing Gaza conflict. On 10 June Australia joined Canada, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom in sanctioning Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich for inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.
If those two Israeli ministers can be sanctioned for inciting serious abuses of Palestinian human rights, what further steps can be taken against Israeli ministers responsible for directing actions in direct violation of international law?
Australia has imposed autonomous sanctions in relation to Russia in response to the 'Russian threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine'. There is no legal reason why similar sanctions cannot be approved with respect to Israel's threat to Palestine and Palestinians.
Israel's conduct in Gaza has also placed the spotlight on Australia's position on the recognition of a Palestinian state. The prime minister also made clear at the weekend that Australia will not recognise Palestine while Hamas is in power in Gaza, and that Australia will not recognise Palestine as a 'gesture'.
Nevertheless, President Emmanuel Macron's announcement that France will recognise Palestine at the September meeting of the United Nations general assembly will continue to place a spotlight on the Albanese government's response given the momentum towards Palestinian recognition over the past year. About 147 states now recognise Palestine. Those that do not are predominantly from Europe in addition to Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.
Four traditional criteria are applied to recognition of a new state. First, a defined territory. Palestine comprises the West Bank, Gaza and parts of Jerusalem. While those borders are well known they are contested by Israel. However, contested borders cannot be used as an effective block and many countries have disputed borders, as is evidenced by the conflict between Cambodia and Thailand.
Second, there must be a permanent population which is satisfied by the Palestinian peoples who predominantly occupy Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem.
Third, there must be a government which is met by the Palestinian Authority. While the PA may have limited capacity to control affairs in Gaza as that territory is under Israeli occupation an allowance can be made for that exceptional situation.
Finally, there must be evidence of the ability to enter into international relations. That is occurring through the PA's engagement with UN institutions including the general assembly and the international criminal court, and through the many other states that recognise and engage with Palestine. That Palestine has yet to attain the formal status of a UN member is not determinative of its status. Switzerland only joined the UN in 2002 after a long period of remaining distant due to its desire to maintain neutrality.
Any decision by the Albanese government to recognise Palestine would only come after cabinet endorsement. Unlike other decisions to recognise new states such as Timor-Leste or South Sudan, Australia's recognition of Palestine will generate fierce domestic political debate.
Albanese has made clear that recognition of Palestine is conditional on Hamas having no ongoing role. Yet in the short term it remains improbable that Hamas will be completely removed from Gaza or as a force in Palestinian politics. Any recognition of Palestine by Australia could include a special condition which made clear it would not politically recognise an Hamas-led Palestinian government. This would be a break from Australian recognition policy towards new states but would acknowledge the exceptional nature of the Palestinian question and that Australia would not tolerate any form of Hamas Palestinian government.
Anthony Albanese insists that Australian foreign policy is made in Canberra and not overseas. However, with respect to both sanctioning Israel over Gaza and eventually recognising Palestine there is every prospect that Australia will seek to avoid any Trump administration fallout in the form of increased unilateral tariffs on Australian exports.
Donald Rothwell is a professor of international law at the Australian National University
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
42 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Elon Musk's X says Online Safety Act that requires users to provide ID to show they are over 18 is 'putting free speech at risk'
Elon Musk 's X has warned that the Online Safety Act, which requires users to prove their age, is 'putting free speech at risk'. The new rules, seen by watchdogs as a way to protect children online, have sparked a furious backlash from thousands of users. The act forces platforms like Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and X, along with sites hosting pornography, to implement strict age verification measures to prove users are over 18. But critics are outraged, arguing that age checks are blocking access to large parts of the internet that have no business being grouped with adult content. To use platforms like X, users must surrender personal details such as credit card information, ID, or even facial scans, leading many to bypass the system altogether. X has now joined the chorus of criticism, warning that unless the act is amended to be more 'balanced', 'free speech will suffer'. The uproar has already seen nearly half a million people signing a petition demanding the act be scrapped as the n umber of users searches for VPN surged since the changes came into force. But a government spokesperson has dismissed these concerns, calling the claim that the law compromises free speech as 'demonstrably false,' insisting that it is 'not designed to censor political debate'. Critics argue that age checks are blocking access to large parts of the internet that have no business being grouped with adult content The dispute reached a fever pitch earlier this week when a senior Labour minister accused Reform's Nigel Farage of aligning with 'sick paedophiles' like Jimmy Savile during the ongoing clash over the law. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle went even further, accusing Farage of siding with 'extreme pornographers' over Reform UK's vow to scrap the act. Mr Farage labelled the comments 'disgusting' and demanded an apology, however Mr Kyle later doubled down on his remarks. Now X has joined the list of critics, saying: 'When lawmakers approved these measures, they made a conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of 'online safety.' 'It is fair to ask if UK citizens were equally aware of the trade-off being made.' The platform claims the timeframe in which they were given to meet mandatory measures had been unnecessarily tight - and despite complying, sites still faced threats of enforcement and fines, 'encouraging over-censorship'. Adding: 'A balanced approach is the only way to protect individual liberties, encourage innovation and safeguard children. 'It's safe to say that significant changes must take place to achieve these objectives in the UK.' Peter Kyle also accused the Reform UK leader Nigel Farage of being on the side of 'extreme pornographers' over the party's pledge to scrap the Online Safety Act Critics including Mr Farage claim that the law is being used to stifle free speech by blocking people from seeing some controversial political statements online Nearly half a million people have signed a petition against the Online Safety Act Ofcom said this week it had launched investigations into 34 pornography sites for new age-check requirements. It comes as Spotify users were left furious after they were told their accounts were at risk of being deleted if they fail to verify their age when trying to access videos marked 18+, with some urging users to stop using it. One user questioned: 'How old do you have to be to listen to music?', while another declared: 'I think I'm deleting payments to any company that ever sends me something like this.' Previously, campaign group, Big Brother Watch, also warned of the 'catastrophic effect on free speech online' that the Ofcom legislation could have with 'intrusive new age checks to access a range of websites'. Xbox have also followed suit, announcing they too will be investing in technologies and tools to ensure players have age-appropriate experiences on their platform, while sending notifications to UK users to verify their age. A Government spokesperson said: 'It is demonstrably false that the Online Safety Act compromises free speech. 'As well as legal duties to keep children safe, the very same law places clear and unequivocal duties on platforms to protect freedom of expression. Failure to meet either obligation can lead to severe penalties, including fines of up to 10% of global revenue or £18 million, whichever is greater. 'The Act is not designed to censor political debate and does not require platforms to age gate any content other than those which present the most serious risks to children such as pornography or suicide and self-harm content. 'Platforms have had several months to prepare for this law. It is a disservice to their users to hide behind deadlines as an excuse for failing to properly implement it.'
South Wales Guardian
44 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Government defends Online Safety Act after X claims it threatens free speech
In a post titled What Happens When Oversight Becomes Overreach, the platform, formerly known as Twitter, outlined criticism of the act and the 'heavy-handed' UK regulators. The Government countered that it is 'demonstrably false' that the Online Safety Act compromises free speech and said it is not designed to censor political debate. Under rules that came into effect on July 25, online platforms must take steps to prevent children accessing harmful content such as pornography or material that encourages suicide. This includes a new duty for online providers to reduce the risk that users encounter illegal content as well as age verification measures in the UK to access pornographic content. 'As a result, the act's laudable intentions are at risk of being overshadowed by the breadth of its regulatory reach. Without a more balanced, collaborative approach, free speech will suffer,' X said. It accused regulators of taking a 'heavy-handed approach' and said that 'many are now concerned that a plan ostensibly intended to keep children safe is at risk of seriously infringing on the public's right to free expression'. Ofcom said this week it had launched investigations into 34 pornography sites for new age-check requirements. The company said 'a balanced approach is the only way to protect individual liberties, encourage innovation and safeguard children'. A Government spokesperson said: 'It is demonstrably false that the Online Safety Act compromises free speech. 'As well as legal duties to keep children safe, the very same law places clear and unequivocal duties on platforms to protect freedom of expression. Failure to meet either obligation can lead to severe penalties, including fines of up to 10% of global revenue or £18 million, whichever is greater. 'The Act is not designed to censor political debate and does not require platforms to age gate any content other than those which present the most serious risks to children such as pornography or suicide and self-harm content. 'Platforms have had several months to prepare for this law. It is a disservice to their users to hide behind deadlines as an excuse for failing to properly implement it.' Technology Secretary Peter Kyle became embroiled in a row with Nigel Farage earlier this week over Reform UK's pledge that it would scrap the Act if the party came into power. He said the Reform UK leader of being on the side of 'extreme pornographers'.
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Government defends Online Safety Act after X claims it threatens free speech
In a post titled What Happens When Oversight Becomes Overreach, the platform, formerly known as Twitter, outlined criticism of the act and the 'heavy-handed' UK regulators. The Government countered that it is 'demonstrably false' that the Online Safety Act compromises free speech and said it is not designed to censor political debate. Under rules that came into effect on July 25, online platforms must take steps to prevent children accessing harmful content such as pornography or material that encourages suicide. This includes a new duty for online providers to reduce the risk that users encounter illegal content as well as age verification measures in the UK to access pornographic content. 'As a result, the act's laudable intentions are at risk of being overshadowed by the breadth of its regulatory reach. Without a more balanced, collaborative approach, free speech will suffer,' X said. It accused regulators of taking a 'heavy-handed approach' and said that 'many are now concerned that a plan ostensibly intended to keep children safe is at risk of seriously infringing on the public's right to free expression'. Ofcom said this week it had launched investigations into 34 pornography sites for new age-check requirements. The company said 'a balanced approach is the only way to protect individual liberties, encourage innovation and safeguard children'. A Government spokesperson said: 'It is demonstrably false that the Online Safety Act compromises free speech. 'As well as legal duties to keep children safe, the very same law places clear and unequivocal duties on platforms to protect freedom of expression. Failure to meet either obligation can lead to severe penalties, including fines of up to 10% of global revenue or £18 million, whichever is greater. 'The Act is not designed to censor political debate and does not require platforms to age gate any content other than those which present the most serious risks to children such as pornography or suicide and self-harm content. 'Platforms have had several months to prepare for this law. It is a disservice to their users to hide behind deadlines as an excuse for failing to properly implement it.' Technology Secretary Peter Kyle became embroiled in a row with Nigel Farage earlier this week over Reform UK's pledge that it would scrap the Act if the party came into power. He said the Reform UK leader of being on the side of 'extreme pornographers'.
