Opposition warns against ‘premature recognition of a Palestinian state' after Canada's vow
World leaders will meet in New York for the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in September.
Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron was the first major Western leader to say he would officially recognise Palestine at the summit.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer this week said he would do the same unless Israel stopped the war in Gaza, where the number of civilians dying from starvation is growing daily due to the Israeli government's chokehold on aid.
With Canada's Mark Carney also pledging to recognise Palestinian statehood at the UNGA, there is speculation Anthony Albanese could follow suit.
Senator Paterson said such a move would legitimise Hamas, the Islamist militants that still control most of war-torn Gaza.
'It's not a matter for me to commentate on Canadian foreign policy – that's a matter for the Canadian government,' he told Sky News.
'But I'm very happy to give you my view on Australian foreign policy, and that is that I do not support the premature recognition of a Palestinian state before the conclusion of a peace process that establishes two states of Israel and Palestine.
'And the reason for that is that if you were to recognise a Palestinian state today, as the Albanese government is leaning towards doing, you would be recognising a state which is in part governed by a terrorist organisation … which continues to hold 50 Israelis hostage.
'Which has sworn the destruction of the State of Israel and the people in it, which has caused death and devastation for people of Gaza.'
Senator Paterson also took aim at the Palestinian Authority, which governs the West Bank.
He lambasted the governing body for not holding an election since 2006, calling it 'deeply corrupt'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
2 hours ago
- Perth Now
Netanyahu says he wants Israel to take control of Gaza
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel intends to take military control of all of Gaza, despite intensifying criticism at home and abroad over the devastating almost two-year-old war in the Palestinian enclave. "We intend to," Netanyahu said in an interview with Fox News when asked if Israel would take over the entire coastal territory. "We don't want to keep it. We want to have a security perimeter. We don't want to govern it. We don't want to be there as a governing body." He said that Israel wanted to hand over the territory to Arab forces that would govern it. Netanyahu made his comments to Fox News before the outcome of a meeting he was due to have on Thursday with a small group of senior ministers to discuss plans for the military to take control of more territory in Gaza. The security cabinet session follows a meeting this week with the head of the military, which Israeli officials have described as tense, saying the military chief had pushed back on expanding the campaign. Opinion polls show that most Israelis want the war to end in a deal that would see the release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas-led Palestinian militants. Netanyahu's government has insisted on total victory over Hamas, which ignited the war with its deadly October 2023 attack on Israel from Gaza. The idea, pushed especially by far-right ministers in Netanyahu's coalition, of Israeli forces thrusting into areas they do not already hold in the enclave has generated alarm in Israel. The mother of one hostage urged people on Thursday to take to the streets to voice their opposition to expanding the campaign. The Hostages Families Forum, which represents captives held in Gaza, urged the military Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir to oppose widening the war and the government to accept a deal that would bring the war to an end and free the remaining hostages. Defence Minister Israel Katz said on Wednesday that the military would carry out the government's decisions until all war objectives were achieved. Israeli leaders have long insisted that Hamas be disarmed and have no future role in a demilitarised Gaza and that the hostages be freed. The UN has called reports about a possible expansion of Israel's military operations in Gaza "deeply alarming" if true. There are 50 hostages still held in Gaza, of whom Israeli officials believe 20 are alive. Most of those freed so far emerged as a result of diplomatic negotiations. Talks toward a ceasefire that could have seen some more hostages released, collapsed in July. A senior Palestinian official said Hamas had told Arab mediators that an increase in humanitarian aid entering Gaza would lead to a resumption in ceasefire negotiations. Israeli officials accuse Hamas of seizing aid to hand out to its fighters and to sell in Gaza markets to finance its operations, accusations that the militant group denies. Videos released last week of two living hostages showed them emaciated and frail, stirring international condemnation. The Israeli military says it controls about 75 per cent of Gaza. Most of Gaza's population of about two million has been displaced multiple times over the past 22 months. Aid groups are warning that the enclave's residents are on the verge of famine. "Where should we go? We have been displaced and humiliated enough," said Aya Mohammad, 30, who, after repeated displacement, has returned with her family to their community in Gaza City. "You know what displacement is? Does the world know? It means your dignity is wiped out, you become a homeless beggar, searching for food, water and medicine." Close to 200 Palestinians have died of starvation in Gaza since the war began, nearly half of them have been children, according to Gaza's health ministry. About 1200 people were killed and 251 hostages taken to Gaza in the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on southern Israeli communities. More than 61,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel's assault on Gaza, according to the Gaza health ministry, which said 98 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire across the enclave in the past 24 hours.
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Can Trump sack his way to better jobs data?
Sam Hawley: Donald Trump didn't like the numbers, so he sacked the messenger. So what are the implications of the US President's decision to get rid of the nation's chief statistician who dared to release revised job figures? Today's staff writer at The Atlantic, Tom Nichols, on the sledgehammer Trump is taking to democracy. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Sam Hawley: Tom, we know that Donald Trump has trouble dealing with the facts, but wow, he really has gone a step further this time, hasn't he? Tom Nichols: Yeah, although I think that this is more of a warning to the next person rather than Trump really believing that the facts are wrong. I think he is lashing out because he's angry and by firing this person, he's trying to send up a flare that says, from now on, give me the numbers that I prefer. Sam Hawley: Oh, yes, all right. So last week, these new job figures came out and they weren't fantastic. Trump didn't obviously like them, so he sacks the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erika McEntarfer, because he says her numbers are wrong. Donald Trump, US President: I think her numbers were wrong, just like I thought her numbers were wrong before the election. Days before the election, she came out with these beautiful numbers for Kamala. Tom Nichols: Well, he was very happy with those numbers earlier in his term when they were reflecting job growth. What happened, of course, is that the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which does a lot of this work by reporting, by self-reporting from American companies, has to do revisions as they get more information coming in from those companies over time. And ever since the pandemic, those companies have been a bit slower about reporting and kind of getting that data together to get it to the Labor Department. So, of course, every so often, BLS comes out and says, OK, now we're going to revise the jobs report that we put out. And Trump decided that revising the jobs numbers downward, that this was some kind of act of political sabotage. Donald Trump, US President: We're doing so well. I believe the numbers were phony, just like they were before the election. And there were other times. So you know what I did? I fired her. And you know what? I did the right thing. Tom Nichols: Now, again, whether he really believes that after glorifying the good numbers that he got is, I think, questionable. And so he's doing the thing that he likes to do as a former business owner, which is firing people who annoy him. And the quickest way to annoy him is to give him bad news. Sam Hawley: And others in the White House are also now trying to explain this sacking, aren't they? Like Kevin Hassett, who's Trump's economic adviser. He was on Fox News echoing Trump's doubts about the job figures. Kevin Hassett, Director of the National Economic Council: If I were running the BLS and I had the biggest downward revision in 50 years, I would have a really, really detailed report explaining why it happened so that everybody really trusted the data. And so I think what we need is a fresh set of eyes at the BLS. Somebody who can clean this thing up. Sam Hawley: Alright, well, Trump's accusing her of being a Biden stooge. Tom Nichols: Yeah. Sam Hawley: I mean, she's not, obviously. Tom Nichols: Yeah. I mean, these are career, you know, civil servants in the American system. At a certain level of seniority, you have to be nominated by the president, who is the head of the executive branch, and then confirmed by the Senate. And this woman was confirmed overwhelmingly in the Senate, including by two US senators whose names happen to be Marco Rubio and JD Vance, who, of course, are now the secretary of state and the vice president. So there was no issue with her being some sort of political stooge. It's pretty hard to find lifelong statisticians who are also political stooges hiding in the American bureaucracy. Sam Hawley: Wow. OK. Because these revised figures, which showed that job growth wasn't what Donald Trump wanted it to be, it doesn't fit with his narrative, I assume, especially as he rolls out these global tariffs. Tom Nichols: Right. You know, Trump creates his own reality. When reality collides with his promises, he says that the reality is fake. The numbers are fake. The reports are fake. The news is fake. People are out to get me. Everything is rigged. And there's a real danger here, because it's not just the president, you know, being annoyed by these numbers. If you undermine the stability and trustworthiness of BLS, of the statistical organisation, businesses across America count on these numbers, as do foreign governments. So basically, Donald Trump is saying, I don't like bad news, so I'm going to basically blind us about what's actually going on at any given moment in the American economy, which suits him just fine, because he will tell his own story about it. But for the rest of us, it's quite dangerous. Sam Hawley: All right, so Tom, let's look further then into what else Donald Trump has been doing when it comes to the American bureaucracy and, of course, truth and facts. We always knew he wanted to get rid of anyone who was critical of his thinking, right? That was part of so-called Project 2025. Just remind me about that. Tom Nichols: Well, Project 2025, it never mentions Donald Trump. It was meant to be a handbook for the next Republican president. Now, of course, they knew that the next Republican president would be Donald Trump. And so this was a document produced at the Heritage Foundation that had an overarching scheme for essentially destroying entire pieces of the American government and its bureaucratic infrastructure. Of course, people always think that sounds good, because who likes the word bureaucracy, right? I mean, you think of bureaucracy and you think about the Department of Motor Vehicles or trying to get your license renewed or something. But here in the United States, as in every developed country, bureaucracy is how the mail gets delivered. It's how labour statistics get compiled and so on. What they really wanted to do, and this is at the heart of a lot of Project 2025, is to get rid of the apolitical servants in the bureaucracy and replace them with Republican conservative political loyalists. And specifically people, of course, by extension, who are going to be loyal to Donald Trump, which then makes the idea of an apolitical administration of a gigantic country of 350 million people impossible, because it's a return to cronyism and political hackery. But that's exactly what the project aims for in what they would call reforming the bureaucracy. Sam Hawley: So tell me, who else has the president deemed to be standing in his way? Who else has he been after? I know, Tom, the list is long, so you might just want to mention the highlights. Tom Nichols: The Department of Justice, which he is hollowing out and destroying piece by piece. The Department of Defense, which is now in the hands of a talk show host. Those are the two big ones that really could have been a problem. That along with, again, an apolitical civil service that says, well, we can't actually break the law. You know, we can't actually engage in politics in the office. But Trump is pushing to destroy all of those regulations. And he's mostly there. I mean, he has the Department of Justice. What he doesn't have are America's judges, who he's trying, of course, to replace through appointments. But even some of his own appointees are fighting him. And so now the Trump administration is really encouraging threats against American judges. I mean, we are really, you know, in the American judiciary is in the fight of its life here to maintain its independence. Unfortunately, a conservative majority on the Supreme Court has decided that Donald Trump is a king and can do whatever he wants. You know, we're in a pretty dicey situation here in the United States. Sam Hawley: And federal scientists too, right? That's really concerning. Tom Nichols: Oh, absolutely. I mean, climate scientists, you know, virologists, epidemiologists. If you had said to me five years ago that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would be running the Department of Health and Human Services, I would have said that it's a comedy skit on Saturday Night Live. And I wouldn't have believed you. Authoritarian leaders don't like experts. Experts are the people who say, look, you can yell at me and threaten me all day long, but, you know, water is still wet and the sky is still blue. And, you know, people are going to die because of this. I mean, there is going to be real harm to the health and well-being of a lot of Americans because of this kookery that's infested the government now. And again, firing all those civil servants, firing all those government scientists and replacing them with people who want, you know, jobs and nice offices is an important step in that. Sam Hawley: Yeah. And not only sacking people, Tom, I also read that he's trying to change history, rewriting historical documents. Tom Nichols: Well, he was very upset that the Smithsonian Institution had an exhibit about impeachment that included him. And that was taken out. Now, apparently, because of the outcry around that, that he is going to be put back in there, whether he likes it or not, which tells you that if people get angry enough and they make enough noise that, you know, you can have some effect here. Yeah, Trump simply reorders reality whenever he speaks to his liking. And again, he may well know, I mean, at this point, it's so difficult to know what Trump believes and what he imagines or what he confabulates. But he knows that he's speaking to his loyal base. And that base right now is pretty angry with him about the whole Jeffrey Epstein business, which is a whole other drama here in America. So he's trying to throw them all kinds of red meat as fast as he can to try and get their minds off the fact that he didn't fulfill his promise to release all these files about one of his best friends. Sam Hawley: All right, well, Tom, Donald Trump, he's restructuring the bureaucracy to suit his view of the world. Project 2025 was, in essence, a wish list of ways to expand presidential power, if you like. So is that happening in your view? Is Trump becoming more powerful? Tom Nichols: It's hard to say. The best barometer of whether the Republicans and Donald Trump are stronger or weaker is this obvious panic that has overtaken them about losing the House next year. Is he personally more powerful? I don't think so. I think he was probably at the height of his power when he came into office and in those first few months. But there have been so many screw ups and misfires and stumbles that I think, you know, if there was any kind of second term honeymoon, he's mostly squandered that away. And so I think he's still the president of the United States and he is still a force to be reckoned with. But I don't think he's looking quite as powerful as he was even, you know, two or three months ago. Which is not to underestimate him. Because he will do things that other presidents would not. Strangely enough, this Epstein business is the thing that's probably hurt him more than anything. I think he's really worried about his base turning on him. And the only time they've even threatened to turn on him has been over this Epstein business. Sam Hawley: Yeah, interesting. All right. Well, the concern for a long time, of course, has been that Trump will chip away at democracy and democratic norms over his four year term, which is rather long. How much damage could he actually do in that time? Tom Nichols: Oh, he's not chipping away at it. He's jackhammering away at it. The chipping away was in his first term, but that was held in check by people around him who would say things like, Mr. President, you can't do that. Or even more importantly, they would say, Mr. President, I'm not doing that. He learned from that. He has come into office with a bunch of careerists and opportunists and sycophants who are going to do whatever he tells them to do. He's calling for an investigation, for example, into Jack Smith, the special counsel who was looking into his various misdeeds in his first term. And the lawyer who will be the head of that office is a 30 year old guy who got his law degree last year. And he'll do whatever Trump wants him to do. Sam Hawley: Well, Tom, I don't want to be overdramatic, but could he actually succeed then in destroying or at least deeply wounding American democracy? Tom Nichols: Destroying, probably not. One of the strengths of the United States is that we are a sprawling, vast federal system. Donald Trump can say a lot of things, but, you know, New York and California and Illinois and Massachusetts all have their own governors and legislatures. What he can do is encourage the collapse of democracy in pockets. It's one thing to live in Boston. It's another thing to live in Alabama or Louisiana or Mississippi or Texas, where the governor and the legislature are straight up aligned with the president and have decided that if he doesn't like the way the Constitution is written, then they don't like it either. And so I've said in the past, I don't think American democracy collapses from coast to coast. I think it evaporates in pockets. That's where I think the real threats are going to come, is in this kind of cooperation with individual states and governors and legislatures. Sam Hawley: Tom Nichols is a staff writer at The Atlantic. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. ABC News Daily will be back again on Monday. Thanks for listening.
News.com.au
4 hours ago
- News.com.au
Latest poll shows Aussies support climate action to prevent risks from extreme weather events
A new poll has revealed a majority of Australians want the government to take stronger climate action and limit risks from extreme weather events such as bushfires. YouGov surveyed 1500 Australians, finding 77 per cent of respondents wanted stronger climate action, while 13 per cent thought the government should do less to prevent risks from extreme weather events. A report released by the Productivity Commission this week found the cost of ignoring climate risks would cost the economy an extra $26bn in the next two decades. The Commission found Australia was expected to experience more extremely hot days, longer fire seasons, heavy rainfall over short periods, rising sea levels, coastal flooding and intense tropical cyclones. It stated a harsher climate would increase costs for Australia from $9bn in 2023 to $35bn by 2050 if Australia did nothing to adapt. 'Disasters create lasting health effects for households, and negatively affect education outcomes and earnings,' the report stated. The government is expected to reveal its 2035 target by September with advice from the Climate Change Authority. Climate Council chief executive officer Amanda McKenzie said setting a strong 2035 climate target will help protect Australians from climate harm while driving new jobs and economic opportunities. 'Climate action and renewable power have been vote winners at the last two federal elections,' she said. 'Voters' concerns about extreme weather are justifiably growing more urgent. 'Almost eight in 10 want Australia's climate plans to reduce risk from climate-fuelled extreme weather, while more than six in 10 think the government should do more overall on climate.' The Climate Action Network program director Barry Traill said support for credible climate action and strong, science-backed pollution reduction targets are solidly mainstream positions in Australia. 'MPs can't afford to turn their backs on people losing their lives, their savings and their homes,' he said. 'Climate denial has and will continue to be punished at the ballot box. Australians want real action to protect lives and livelihoods.'
