The moment the PM gained confidence Australia could recognise a Palestinian state
The New York Declaration at the end of July was one moment in a steady stream of momentum building towards recognition of a Palestinian state.
But it was a significant moment.
At a high-level international conference led by France and Saudi Arabia, Middle Eastern and European powers committed to taking "time-bound" and "irreversible" steps for the settlement of the question of Palestine, and the implementation of a two-state solution.
On the same day the New York Declaration was settled, the United Kingdom announced its intention to recognise a Palestinian state, following France's move a few days earlier.
Canada signalled its intentions to recognise the next day, and now Australia has also followed.
Since the outbreak of conflict in Gaza following the October 7 terror attack by Hamas, the international community has worked on a plan that could deliver peace in the region.
The New York Declaration lays the foundations of a plan that could be followed the "day after" war ends in Gaza, with commitments by the Palestinian Authority to hold democratic elections, accept a de-militarised state, and reform its school curriculum to promote peace.
Its policy — called One State, One Government, One Law, One Gun — spells out a program to hold elections within a year to trigger generational renewal, and support disarmament of Hamas under a set time-frame.
In return, financial support would be provided to the Palestinian Authority as it progresses its reforms, under a staged plan expected to be detailed further at the September UN meeting.
To support Gaza's reconstruction, financial support would also be committed through an international trust fund, with the group backing an Arab League plan that would provide $53 billion to recovery efforts.
And following a ceasefire, a transitional administration under the Palestinian Authority would immediately be established to operate in Gaza, excluding Hamas from governance.
An international peacekeeping force would be deployed to ensure stability, which could also evolve to monitor any future peace agreement.
Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Varsen Aghabekian said the authority had assured Australia and the world it would reform.
"We're moving by the book and we are presenting our reports on the milestones we are achieving," Dr Aghabekian told the ABC.
"[And] President Abbas has made it very clear to leaders of the world these elections are also a Palestinian demand.
"Now, we need the support of the international community to ensure that the environment is conducive to enable Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank to be part of this election process."
In a joint statement the day the declaration was settled, foreign ministers of several nations, including Australia, voiced their support for commitments by the Palestinian Authority. They also expressed their determination to work on the "day after" architecture to rebuild Gaza ahead of September's UN General Assembly.
The agreement marked a shift in global politics, as the Arab League nations signed onto a plan with the West to recognise Israel, demand the disarmament of Hamas and condemn the terror group's October 7 attack, opening a door for international recognition of both Israel and a Palestinian state.
And, critically, it provided a workaround to a longstanding hurdle. By providing a pathway for Palestinian recognition that could then lead to a two-state solution, it offered a way to progress a two-state solution that could not effectively be vetoed by nations unwilling to cooperate.
Alluding to the declaration, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said last week there was a "unique opportunity" in the international community to isolate and diminish Hamas.
"The best way to ensure peace and stability in the Middle East is for there to be two states and the reason for urgency behind recognition is this, there is a risk that there will be no Palestine left to recognise if the world does not act," Senator Wong said.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese affirmed on Monday that the world could no longer wait for success to be guaranteed
"There is a moment of opportunity here, and Australia will work with the international community to seize it," Mr Albanese said.
While the declaration provided impetus, and fresh hope for peace, there are still major hurdles.
First, Hamas still holds hostages captured in its October 7 terror attack, and shows no intention of surrendering in Gaza.
The terrorist organisation has said it would not surrender until a Palestinian state was recognised.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed his opposition to progressing two-state solution while war in Gaza rages, and just days ago announced plans to escalate Israel's military operation and occupy parts of Gaza.
Its agreement to a two-state solution would also require withdrawing from West Bank settlements considered illegal under international law.
And the US, a key player that holds the power to veto full Palestinian membership to the United Nations, has opposed the push for recognition, saying it would be a "reward" for Hamas.
The Coalition has challenged the government to explain its break from a longstanding bipartisan position on a two-state solution. It has questioned how several commitments of the Palestinian Authority, including the disarmament of Hamas, will actually be achieved.
Former ambassador to Israel, Liberal senator Dave Sharma, said Australia's decision would make reaching a ceasefire deal harder.
"Hamas has been portraying this concession from Australia, the United Kingdom, France and Canada as a win ... it's changed their approach to ceasefire negotiations," Senator Sharma said.
Mr Netanyahu also said on Monday that international pressure through recognition would not change his position, labelling that push "delusional".
International relations specialist Professor Amin Saikal said he did not expect Australian recognition to make much difference "on the ground" in the Middle East, where Palestinian territories remained under Israeli occupation, and Hamas refuses to surrender.
"They will simply be joining another 147 countries around the world that have recognised the state of Palestine. But this time it is members of the western alliance that have come forward, and I think that is very significant," Professor Saikal said.
"The Israeli leadership will have to really take notice of that because, otherwise Israel is going to remain more isolated ... the next step would be sanctions if Prime Minister Netanyahu remains defiant."
International law professor Don Rothwell said recognising a Palestinian state while parts of it remained under Israeli occupation would be unprecedented, adding there was a risk the status quo would remain.
He said it was not meaningless for Australia to add its voice — but it was hard to see how some of the necessary conditions for peace would be met.
"There's such a strong momentum towards Australia and many like-minded making this formal announcement of recognition at the United Nations it's very difficult to see how anything could derail that," Professor Rothwell said.
"It's also very difficult to see how some of the expectations Australia has with respect to the reform of the Palestinian Authority elections will play out over the next month."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
What Australia's shift on Palestinian state means for politics and alliances across the Asia-Pacific region
Australia's move to recognise a Palestinian state marks a historic shift in its policy and brings it in line with many of its South-East Asian neighbours. However, Australia's decision goes against many of its Pacific neighbours to the east, who tend to align themselves with the US and Israel because of aid, development, and religion. So how will this decision affect Australia's regional relationships, and will it encourage countries who have yet to recognise a Palestinian state to follow suit? The news of Australia's decision was welcomed by the Indonesian government, which called the shifted stance on Palestine "courageous". Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei have recognised Palestinian statehood since its Declaration of Independence in 1988. A year later, the Philippines did the same. But South-East Asia has never been entirely united on the issue. "There are already some divisions within the bloc regarding Palestine, with countries like Myanmar and Laos being less vocal, while Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines are strong supporters," said Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat from the Centre of Economic and Law Studies in Jakarta. One of the strongest advocates for Palestinian statehood is Malaysia. It has refused to have any diplomatic relations with Israel and has prohibited people travelling on Israeli passports from entering Malaysia, said Mary Ainslie from the University of Nottingham. After Hamas attacked Israel in October 2023, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was reported to have spoken to one of the leaders of Hamas. "Its leaders have strong ties to Hamas, for which they have come under much international criticism," Dr Ainslie told the ABC. Dr Rakhmat said countries like Vietnam and Cambodia, while perhaps not as vocal, have also formally recognised Palestine. "Thailand, on the other hand, has historically maintained a more neutral stance, but its recognition of Palestine in the past indicates some level of support," Dr Rakhmat said. Dr Rakhmat said that South-East Asia's early collective recognition of Palestine was based on the principles of "anti-colonialism and human rights". However, South-East Asian countries have been careful not to heavily criticise Israel as they did not want scrutiny of their own human rights records, Dr Ainslie said. She said they were less likely to take an "active" stance supporting the Palestinian cause because of strong but hidden economic links with Israel and their technology. "The practice of non-interference by these nations has served them well and disrupting this would potentially destabilise relations." Dr Rakhmat said Australia's recognition of a Palestinian state could strengthen solidarity among ASEAN countries or strain relations, depending on each country's national interests regarding Palestine. Other countries including Japan, South Korean, and Singapore have expressed support but are yet to recognise Palestinian statehood. Experts who have spoken to the ABC agreed it was unlikely Australia's decision to recognise the state of Palestine would change any other nation's position. Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Nauru, Palau, Tuvalu, and Tonga do not recognise Palestinian statehood. Many of these counties also traditionally rely on the US for foreign aid and security. Further indication of the Pacific's strong ties to the US and Israel came during the United Nation General Assembly in June, when six Pacific nations joined the US and Israel to vote against a permanent and immediate ceasefire between Israel and Gaza. Professor Derek McDougall from the University of Melbourne's school of social and political sciences said religion played an important factor in Pacific politics. He said even though countries like Fiji had a majority Indigenous population — a demographic that often supported the Palestinian cause — it did not necessarily mean they were sympathetic to Palestinians because many Indigenous Fijians were also evangelical Christians. "In the US it's the evangelical Christians, perhaps even more than the Jews, that provide significant political support for Israel," he said. Although Australia has taken an opposing position to many Pacific nations, Sione Tekiteki a lawyer, and senior law lecturer at the Auckland University of Technology said it would not "significantly damage" its relationships with its Pacific Island neighbours. "The region's long standing 'friends to all' foreign policy posture means that Pacific states rarely let partners' positions on distant conflicts determine the overall ambit of their bilateral and regional relationship," Dr Tekiteki said. He said Australia would remain a key partner across the Pacific because of the substantial aid and development it provided. Both Dr Tekiteki and Professor McDougall believed that the credibility of Australia's climate commitments along with its posture toward China and wider regional security environment will carry far greater weight in shaping Pacific perceptions than its stance on Palestine.
SBS Australia
an hour ago
- SBS Australia
Trump says Russia will face 'severe consequences' if Putin blocks Ukraine peace deal
US President Donald Trump threatened "severe consequences" if Russia President Vladimir Putin blocked peace in Ukraine but also said that a meeting between the pair could swiftly be followed by a second that included the leader of Ukraine. Trump did not specify what the consequences could be, but he has warned of economic sanctions if a meeting between himself and President Putin in Alaska on Friday proved fruitless. The comments by Trump and the mood after a virtual meeting of Trump, European leaders and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy could provide some hope for Kyiv after fears the Alaska meet could sell out Ukraine and carve up its territory. However, Russia is likely to resist Ukraine and Europe's demands strongly and previously said its stance had not changed since it was set out by Putin in June 2024. When asked if Russia would face any consequences if Putin does not agree to stop the war after Friday's meeting, Trump responded: 'Yes, they will.' Asked if those consequences would be sanctions or tariffs, Trump told reporters: 'I don't have to say, there will be very severe consequences." But the president also described the aim of the meeting between the pair in Alaska as "setting the table" for a quick follow-up that would include Zelenskyy. "If the first one goes okay, we'll have a quick second one," he said. "I would like to do it almost immediately, and we'll have a quick second meeting between President Putin and President Zelenskyy and myself, if they'd like to have me there." Trump did not provide a time frame for a second meeting. Putin is 'bluffing', Zelenskyy says European leaders and Zelenskyy had earlier spoken with Trump in a last-ditch call hosted by Germany to lay out red lines ahead of the Alaska meeting. "We had a very good call. He was on the call. President Zelenskyy was on the call. I would rate it a 10, very friendly," Trump said. French President Emmanuel Macron said Trump agreed that Ukraine must be involved in any discussions about ceding land while Zelenskyy said Trump had supported the idea of security guarantees in a post-war settlement. "President Trump was very clear that the United States wanted to achieve a ceasefire at this meeting in Alaska," Macron said. "The second point on which things were very clear, as expressed by President Trump, is that territories belonging to Ukraine cannot be negotiated and will only be negotiated by the Ukrainian president." German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who hosted the virtual meeting, said the principle that borders could not be changed by force must continue to apply. "If there is no movement on the Russian side in Alaska, then the United States and we Europeans should ... increase the pressure," he said. "President Trump knows this position, he shares it very extensively and therefore I can say: We have had a really exceptionally constructive and good conversation with each other." Trump and Putin are due to discuss how to end the three-and-a-half-year-old conflict, the biggest in Europe since World War Two. Trump has previously said both sides will have to swap land to end fighting that has cost tens of thousands of lives and displaced millions. Zelenskyy said on Wednesday he hoped the Trump-Putin talks will centre on a ceasefire and he warned Trump that Putin was "bluffing" about his desire to end the war. "I told the US president and all our European colleagues that Putin is bluffing," he said at a briefing in Berlin. "He is trying to apply pressure before the meeting in Alaska along all parts of the Ukrainian front. Russia is trying to show that it can occupy all of Ukraine." Zelenskyy added that he wanted a three-leader meeting, saying no talks about Ukraine should exclude his country's representatives.
ABC News
3 hours ago
- ABC News
Labor and the Coalition have very different ideas about ties to the United States
The prime minister's well-telegraphed announcement this week that Australia will recognise a Palestinian state surprised precisely no one in the end. Nor did the opposition's rejection of this diplomatic step. But the arguments from both sides this week revealed more than just a foreign policy split over the Middle East. The growing divide over how deferential Australia should be towards the United States has become a chasm. The prime minister and opposition leader have expressed starkly different views on whether Australia should be prepared to "break" with its great ally on such a major foreign policy question. The partisan divide over how closely to align with the US has been steadily building since Donald Trump's return to the White House. The Albanese government remains committed to the US alliance. It wants AUKUS to survive the ongoing Pentagon review and is confident it will. But at the same time, the prime minister is demonstrating greater independence from the US than any of his recent predecessors would have dared. The unpopularity of Trump in Australia has allowed him the room to move. Australia and the United States are now at odds on climate change (Albanese is sticking with net zero and the Paris Agreement), trade (Trump's tariffs are "not the act of a friend") and defence spending (Australia is resisting US calls to reach a 3.5 per cent of GDP target). In his John Curtin oration last month, Albanese spoke of this greater independence within the US alliance as a virtue. He sees a more sovereign stance benefiting Australia's relations in the region and Labor's political standing at home. When pressed this week on the implications of splitting with the US on Palestinian recognition, the prime minister's response was revealing. "We make our sovereign decisions as a nation state in Australia's national interest, and we are aligning ourselves with like-minded countries," he said. "Sovereignty" and "national interest" carry a patriotic appeal. Aligning with "like-minded countries" refers to the UK, Canada, France who have all committed to Palestinian recognition. The US, notably, is not regarded as "like-minded" here. Australia has been increasingly siding with this "like-minded" group as western nations navigate the turbulence of Trump. In statements condemning Israel, in discussions about how to support Ukraine without the US, on climate and trade — this "like-minded" coalition is finding more common ground. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley's view of how Australia should prioritise the US relationship could not be more different. The Coalition is already more closely aligned to Trump's world view on a range of fronts. It's considering joining Trump in dropping the net zero target. On trade, it seeks to blame the Albanese government, at least in part, for Trump's tariffs. On defence spending, the Coalition's pledge to reach a 3 per cent of GDP target was re-stated immediately after the election, while everything else remains under review. Barely a day goes by when the opposition isn't criticising the prime minister failing to secure a face-to-face meeting in the Oval Office. The Coalition views this as vital. It derided the length of Albanese's recent visit to China, on the grounds he should be in Washington instead. On Palestinian recognition, the opposition leader revealed just how heavily she thinks the US relationship should weigh in Australia's thinking. "There can be no breaking with our closest ally," Ley declared at a press conference after a shadow cabinet decision to oppose and reverse Palestinian recognition. "It's disrespectful of the relationship with the US," she told 2GB. Shadow Finance Minister James Paterson, incidentally, struck a somewhat different tone. While also strongly criticising the government's decision, he told Sky News Australia "of course, Australia's foreign policy is a matter for Australia, and we should decide it consistent with our own national interest, regardless of what our friends or allies might say". It was an acknowledgement the Coalition's position should still be framed as a sovereign decision, not one driven by deference to the United States. For his part, Trump is clearly not in favour of Palestinian recognition while Hamas remains in place and before a peace process. He agrees with those who argue recognition only rewards Hamas. He dismisses the significance of momentum amongst US allies who have taken this step. But Australia's decision to join the list hasn't caused much of a reaction from Trump at all. Indeed, the level of presidential concern appears to be subsiding as more allies take this step. A White House official told the Nine newspapers while the president's position is clear, he "is not married to any one solution as it pertains to building a more peaceful region". Still, Trump is nothing if not unpredictable. He may well say something much stronger if directly asked. This difference over Palestinian recognition could add to strains in the Australia-US relationship. The Albanese government has no doubt factored in that risk, along with all the other risks that go along with the decision to recognise a Palestinian state. The fear of upsetting Trump, however, isn't stopping US allies from moving towards Palestinian recognition. And here in Australia, this decision has exposed an even wider gap between the prime minister and opposition leader over whether "breaking with our closest ally" is OK. David Speers is national political lead and host of Insiders, which airs on ABC TV at 9am on Sunday or on iview.
