PM's Palestine blunder plays to domestic cheer squad

The Australian

21 hours ago

These actions are not likely to have any particular consequence in the Middle East. They're not real­ly concerned with the politics of Gaza City and Ramallah but with Marrickville and Liverpool, Northcote and Broadmeadows.
This is about domestic politics, not the Middle East. As Frank Knopfelmacher long ago quipped: Australia foreign policy is often domestic politics by other means.
Consider the simple logic. You recognise a state when a state exists. This move would be the equivalent of recognising a Tibetan state. After all, Beijing invaded Tibet and has perpetrated undeniable human rights abuses. The Tibetan government-in-exile claims to be the true representative of the Tibetan people. Are the Tibetan people less worthy of a state than Palestinians?
But China is a big power, Israel a small power. Our 'conscience' typically goes quiet with big powers. Australia recognises states rather than governments. If we decline to have diplomatic relations with the Taliban government, we still recognise Afghanistan.
International convention, to which Australia subscribes, is that a state must have recognised borders, a clear government in control of its territory and various other attributes, none of which Palestine enjoys.
What has happened here is that Israel's military campaign in Gaza, especially in recent months, and the prospect of an intensified campaign in Gaza city are very unpopular. (Incidentally, I strongly support Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas but think in recent months the moral, human and political cost has outweighed any benefit. Therefore it should change the campaign. That view doesn't require early recognition of Palestine.) One way left-of-centre governments are coping with the domestic politics this situation throws up is the empty, symbolic and meaningless gesture of recognition, though the politics of this recognition could be destructive. Russia recognised a Palestinian state decades ago, yet this didn't hasten an actual Palestinian state.
As Liberal senator Dave Sharma, a former Australian ambassador to Israel, told Radio National, recognition has 'strengthened Hamas's international position, it's made Hamas less likely to reach a ceasefire. It's made Hamas able to portray itself as making political progress because of its military actions, and that is actually pushing back the resolution of this conflict.'
Hamas also credibly claims these moves by Western governments to afford recognition as a huge victory for its violence.
Sharma makes the broader point that conflating criticism of Israel's latest military policy with formal recognition of Palestine is illogical and counter-productive. When a new state is established, diplomatic recognition helps legitimatise and normalise it. Thus when what is now the Republic of Ireland broke away from Britain and became the Irish Free State in 1922, international recognition helped underwrite the deal. Similarly when South Sudan became independent.
When the former Yugoslavia broke up, the individual nations like Serbia and Croatia were recognised one by one. When Ukraine left the Russian Federation, Moscow and Kyiv negotiated borders and the deal was ratified, among others, by Britain and the US, though Russia under Vladimir Putin later invaded.
This move by the Albanese government is more akin to recognising a government-in-exile; the White Russians in the 1920s, for example. Most of the opposition figures who spoke on this were nearly as confused as the government, saying predominantly that the conditions Anthony Albanese mentioned should be satisfied before recognition.
The opposition shows its lack of sophistication here. All the conditions Albanese outlined could be theoretically satisfied and it still would be illogical, counter-productive and meaningless to recognise a state that can come into existence only at the end of a complicated negotiation.
As has often been stated, the Palestinians have been seriously offered a state on four separate occasions. When Israel and Palestine were first partitioned the Palestinians and the surrounding Arab states refused, rejected the partition and launched a war of annihilation against Israel.
Then under the Oslo Accords there were two separate offers to the Palestinians. We needn't rely on Israeli testimony.
These are all described at length in the memoirs of Clinton administration officials. Then Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert made a further offer in 2008. Again, no need to rely on Israeli sources. This was described in Condoleezza Rice's memoirs.
In each case the offer was essentially the same: a Palestinian state on almost all the West Bank, about 94 per cent of it, with only the Jewish settlements adjacent to Jerusalem kept by Israel but with compensating land swaps from Israel proper; plus all of Gaza; plus a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem.
In return the Palestinians had to accept that this was the end of all claims against Israel and that they give up the idea that millions of Palestinians living overseas could come back to live in Israel, and of course they had to put an end to terrorism and anti-Semitic incitement in their education systems.
But the whole ideology of Palestinianism, as some call it, is that they have been removed from the whole land of Israel, which belongs to them, and that there's no legitimacy to a Jewish state in the Middle East. Therefore they could never finally agree to any possible deal. The extremists among them responded with anti-Israeli terrorism.
Not only that, it was clear that any Palestinian leader who made peace on those terms would be assassinated, just as Egypt's president, Anwar Sadat, was assassinated by extremists who objected to his peace with Israel.
For much of the period since the Olmert offer the Palestinian leadership has refused to negotiate so-called final status issues with Israel at all.
The 'right of return' is the most ridiculous Palestinian demand. Under this, every descendant or blood relative of any family that historically once lived in the territory of Israel would have a right to return and live permanently in Israel. Years ago I interviewed senior Palestinian intellectual Sari Nusseibeh, who told me he thought the right of return was simply completely unrealistic.
By now it's probably seven million people who would qualify under the right of return to live in Israel. No Palestinian leader will give this up. No Israeli will ever accept it. Its only real purpose is to offer an excuse for Palestinian representatives to reject any realistic offer of a state. All this rejectionism has moved Israeli politics to the right. Indeed, while ever Palestinian leaders hold these positions a two-state solution is indeed impossible.
Yet all of Albanese's blather doesn't even mention any of the three final status issues – accepting the 1967 borders with land swaps, the status of Jerusalem and forgoing the right of return.
It is of course inconceivable that even the conditions Albanese claims now accompany recognition will be met. Reform of the Palestinian Authority? Now there's a novel idea. Similarly, what happens if there is an election and, as likely, Hamas wins?
Support for an eventual two-state solution has been bipartisan in Australia but not support for early recognition of a Palestinian state. No Australian government can solve the Israel-Palestine dispute. Australian governments can cynically manipulate these issues for domestic political purposes. That's what's happening here. Greg Sheridan Foreign Editor
Greg Sheridan is The Australian's foreign editor. His most recent book, Christians, the urgent case for Jesus in our world, became a best seller weeks after publication. It makes the case for the historical reliability of the New Testament and explores the lives of early Christians and contemporary Christians. He is one of the nation's most influential national security commentators, who is active across television and radio, and also writes extensively on culture and religion. He has written eight books, mostly on Asia and international relations. A previous book, God is Good for You, was also a best seller. When We Were Young and Foolish was an entertaining memoir of culture, politics and journalism. As foreign editor, he specialises in Asia and America. He has interviewed Presidents and Prime Ministers around the world.