The inching steps that paved the way for Australia to recognise Palestinian state
Under that blanket of agreed position, years passed without either side formally moving to recognise Palestinian statehood, despite the end goal entailing two sovereign nations.
Australia, as the government has repeatedly noted, is not a major player in the conflict between Israel and Hamas.
But a decision by Australia to recognise Palestinian statehood still carries weight, especially when made in tandem with other Western nations.
Which is exactly what happened on Monday, when after much-anticipation the Albanese government pledged to recognise a Palestinian state within months, breaking with the long-held bipartisan position.
"We can't keep waiting for the end of a peace process that has ground to a halt," Foreign Minister Penny Wong said.
"We made clear we would recognise Palestine when it would best contribute momentum to peace. September is that time."
The road to this moment has been decades in the making and paved with incremental shifts, even after the war that began almost two years ago added a new urgency to the discussions.
But when France, the United Kingdom and Canada announced they would recognise Palestine weeks earlier, suddenly Australia's own imminent declaration appeared all but inevitable.
Over the course of months, spurred by a war without an end in sight, here's how Australia came up with an answer to the 77-year-old question of a Palestinian state.
Terror group Hamas launched its surprise assault on Israel.
More than 1,200 were killed in the attack, and another 250 taken hostage, some of whom are still being held in Gaza.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately declared his country was at war, launching air strikes into the territory.
In the initial aftermath, the Albanese government repeatedly noted that Israel had a right to defend itself against Hamas.
"Of course people are worried about escalation, but Israel has a right to defend itself and it will be doing so," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on October 8.
"This is an attack on Israel by Hamas that has no precedent for what is occurring here."
After two months of conflict in Gaza, Mr Albanese urged the world not to "abandon hope" for a two-state solution involving sovereign Palestinian and Israeli nations.
But in the speech delivered for the Lowy Institute in Sydney, he also reiterated that every nation had the right to "be secure in its own borders and to determine its own future".
"None of us should abandon hope in the ultimate goal: a two-state solution, with Israelis and Palestinians living securely and prosperously within internationally recognised borders," he said.
The first signs of a shift came when Senator Wong told a conference at the Australian National University that recognition of a Palestinian state could help build "momentum towards a two-state solution" — the government's stated end goal.
The comment suggested the government was not thinking about recognition as a result of that process, but a step along the way.
"We are now 30 years on from the Oslo Accords that put Palestinian statehood at the end of a process," she said.
"The failures of this approach by all parties over decades — as well as the Netanyahu government's refusal to even engage on the question of a Palestinian state — have caused widespread frustration.
"There are always those who claim recognition is rewarding an enemy. This is wrong.
"First, because Israel's own security depends on a two-state solution. There is no long-term security for Israel unless it is recognised by the countries of its region."
The day after she delivered the speech, Senator Wong made clear for the first time that Australia recognising Palestinian statehood was a matter of when, not if — a line government ministers repeatedly wheeled out more than a year later as momentum grew.
"Australia does support a two-state solution. It's not a question of if we will recognise a Palestine state, it is a question of when," she told the ABC.
The interview took place hours before a United Nations General Assembly meeting, at which Australia voted with 143 other nations in support of a resolution to expand the rights and privileges afforded to the Palestinian delegation. Nine countries voted against it, including the United States and Israel.
It did not, however, grant them full membership of the international organisation. While there is a Palestinian ambassador to the United nations, they are considered an "observer".
Following the vote, the foreign minister clarified to reporters that Australia could recognise Palestinian statehood before a formal peace process between Palestinian authorities and Israel was complete, but did not give a hint of the timeline.
"We will do that when we think the time is right," she said.
"What we would say, and what I do say, is Australia no longer believes that recognition can only come at the end of a peace process.
"It could occur as part of a peace process."
She also stressed the vote was "not about whether Australia recognises Palestine" as its own state.
Australia voted in favour of a draft United Nations resolution to recognise Palestinian "permanent sovereignty" over the natural resources in their occupied territories, again breaking ranks with the United States and Israel.
A total of 159 countries voted in favour of the draft resolution, including Australia, the United Kingdon, New Zealand, France, Germany and Japan.
It called on the United Nations to recognise "permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources".
It also demanded Israel stop destroying infrastructure, such as water, sewage pipelines and electricity networks, and to stop confiscating Palestinian homes and farms.
Australia joined with 27 other countries to sign a joint statement demanding Israel lift restrictions on aid entering Gaza and an immediate end to the war.
The statement — signed by Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Canada, Denmark and others — criticised what it called the "inhumane killing" of Palestinians and condemned the "drip feeding of aid".
It came amid a growing flood of media coverage showing emancipated Gazans, with a slew of human rights and aid organisations warning of mass starvation in the strip.
"We are prepared to take further action to support an immediate ceasefire and a political pathway to security and peace for Israelis, Palestinians and the entire region," the statement read.
President Emmanuel Macron announced France will recognise Palestinian statehood at a United Nations meeting in September, becoming the first G7 nation to make the pledge.
It is also a permanent member of the powerful United Nations Security Council, and what the Australian government would call a like-minded nation.
"The urgent thing today is that the war in Gaza stops and the civilian population is saved,″ he said.
Mr Macron's announcement began a fresh wave of momentum, with other key Australian allies joining France in the following days.
Just days after France's decision, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told ABC's Insiders that the government did not plan to recognise a Palestinian state "imminently".
He instead used the appearance to accuse Israel of "quite clearly" breaching international law by withholding aid from civilians in Gaza.
On Palestinian recognition, Mr Albanese said he was open to doing so if there were appropriate guarantees about the viability of such a state, stressing that Australia would not do so as a "gesture".
"You need to recognise a Palestinian state as part of moving forward. How do you exclude Hamas from any involvement there? How do you ensure that a Palestinian state operates in an appropriate way which does not threaten the existence of Israel? And so we won't do any decision as a gesture, we will do it as a way forward if the circumstances are met," he said.
With growing pressure on the government to outline its own timeline for recognition, Australia issued another joint statement with 14 countries that welcomed a series of previous commitments by the Palestinian Authority.
They included the authority's calls in June for Hamas to disarm and release the Israeli hostages and its undertaking to hold fresh elections within a year — conditions for recognition the Australian government had previously identified.
Mr Albanese said the assurances were "a very significant step forward", but once again remained coy on when they would move on recognition.
"The timeline is not what we're looking at. What we're looking at is the circumstances where recognition will advance the objective of the creation of the two states," he said.
"That's my objective. Not making a statement, not winning a political point, but achieving that."
The statement came as the United Kingdom's Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer revealed his country would join France in recognising a Palestinian state at the September United Nations meeting unless Israel took significant steps to end the war in Gaza.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney revealed his country planned to recognise Palestine at the same meeting, putting him in lockstep with France and the United Kingdom.
Mr Carney said the decision was predicated on the Palestinian Authority's commitment to reforms, including that it would hold an election in 2026 in which Hamas could play no part.
"The deepening suffering of civilians leaves no room for delaying coordinated international action to support peace, security and the dignity of human life," he said.
In an interview with ABC's Afternoon Briefing, Foreign Minister Penny Wong appeared to leave the door open for Australia to join with its allies and recognise a Palestinian state in September.
She repeated the government's line that such a decision had become a "matter of when, not if" while acknowledging a number of international developments, including the Arab League nations' unprecedented step to call on Hamas to disarm and relinquish power in Gaza.
Mr Albanese spoke with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for the first time since the weeks after the Hamas terror attack on Israel.
The Palestinian Authority exercises partial control over the occupied West Bank and also governed Gaza until Hamas swept to power in a 2006 election.
According to a government-issued statement, Mr Abbas told the prime minister that Australia could play an "important role" in achieving peace by recognising a Palestinian state.
Earlier the same day, Senator Wong ramped up her language in an interview with the ABC, warning there would be "no Palestine left to recognise" if the international community didn't move soon.
Days earlier it was also revealed that Mr Albanese had spoken to United Nations' Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and had sought a conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was later confirmed to be held on August 7.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong joined with her counterparts in Germany, Italy, New Zealand and the United Kingdom to reject Israel's plan to take over Gaza City.
The joint statement warned that the move would "risk violating international and humanitarian law".
"It will aggravate the catastrophic humanitarian situation, endanger the lives of the hostages, and further risk the mass displacement of civilians," it read.
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke flagged that there is precedent for recognising countries occupied by terrorist forces during an interview with Sky News, while maintaining that Hamas can play no role in a future Palestinian state.
"There have frequently been countries where part of that nation has been occupied by a terrorist group and we haven't ceased to recognise the country," he said.
Mr Albanese and Senator Wong announced Australia's plan to recognise Palestinian statehood at the upcoming United Nations meeting, ending weeks of speculation.
At a media conference at Parliament House, the prime minister said the decision to support Palestinians having "a state of their own" was made as part of a "coordinated global effort building momentum for a two-state solution".
It was also predicated on commitments the Palestinian Authority had made, including that Hamas have no role in the state and that general elections are held.
"The international community's vision for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East always encompassed two states — living side-by-side with internationally recognised borders," Mr Albanese said.
"I understand that on this issue, history casts a long shadow. Every generation has known failures and false dawns. Yet, the story of this struggle is also one of opportunities not taken.
"That is where the risk of trying is nothing compared to the danger of letting this moment pass us by."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
3 minutes ago
- ABC News
Delay in choosing COP31 host city poses challenge to Adelaide's preparations
Adelaide is ramping up preparations for next year's major UN climate summit despite not yet being named the host city, with experts warning that the uncertainty could pose logistical and diplomatic challenges. The South Australian government has allocated more than $8 million to prepare for COP31 and had anticipated that a host nation could be chosen as early as November last year. But Australia remains locked in a diplomatic stalemate with Türkiye over hosting rights for the November 2026 event, with the rival bidding nation yet to drop out. UN climate chief Simon Stiell has urged the two countries to resolve the impasse, saying a decision "needs to be made very quickly" both for logistical reasons and to ensure a negotiating agenda can be agreed on. "The delay in making that decision is unhelpful to the process — we need clarity," he told a Smart Energy Council Summit two weeks ago. Lasting about a fortnight, COP31 will bring together tens of thousands of delegates — including heads of state — to thrash out new climate agreements and track progress on the old ones. The "Conference of the Parties" is the main decision-making body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It includes representatives from all 198 countries that are party to the convention. But with only 15 months until the summit, the scope for organising an "ambitious" negotiating agenda is shrinking, according to Dr Wesley Morgan, research associate at the Institute for Climate Risk and Response at UNSW. "There would still be very much expectations that Australia has an ambitious agenda showing the world how to transition away from fossil fuels to the clean energy industries of tomorrow. "The runway is getting shorter, but Australia very much can still achieve a very ambitious summit." COP31, Dr Morgan added, would be Australia's "biggest event since the 2000 Olympics in Sydney". He said it was not unprecedented for a host nation to be chosen only 12 months out. Australia remains "in the box seat" for COP31, Dr Morgan said, noting that it has majority support from its regional UN grouping — the Western European and Others Group. He said Australia needs to reach an arrangement with Türkiye to convince them to drop out, as the hosting rights decision is made by consensus, not a vote. September's meeting of the UN General Assembly looms as the next potential decision point, Dr Morgan said. If not then, a decision "would definitely need to happen" this November at COP30 in Belém, Brazil. "There are provisions if there continues to be a stalemate, but let's hope it doesn't get to that point," he said. Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen said last week that the UNFCCC process is "pretty opaque in terms of how a dispute gets resolved between two countries". He said Australia's bid has "overwhelming support" but there is still work to do. The South Australian government says it is continuing to prepare for COP31, which Premier Peter Malinauskas has described as "unlike anything we [South Australia] have ever hosted before". The government set aside more than $8 million in June's state budget for COP31 preparations, with those funds gradually being expended despite no decision on a host city. SA Police also has a dedicated COP31 preparation team that has grown to 18 police officers, Police Commissioner Grant Stevens said last week. "We can't afford to wait for the UN to make a decision regarding the host city," he told ABC Radio Adelaide. Commissioner Stevens said if Adelaide does host COP31, SA Police will be "borrowing resources from every police jurisdiction around Australia and New Zealand" to manage security and event management. Total COP attendance — comprised of delegates, observer groups and media — has fluctuated between 20,000 and 70,000 people over the past five years, according to the UNFCCC. Adding to the security challenge is the likely presence of dozens of world leaders. Sam Dighton, CEO of the Committee for Adelaide think tank, said security preparations were ""clearly ... a challenge for an event of this scale". "But we know that government is preparing both at a federal and state level, preparations are underway to deal with this certainly also from an emergency services perspective," he said. The Adelaide Convention Centre will host the bulk of COP31 events if Australia is chosen, with the government flagging that a "designated secure zone and public event area" will form part of the hosting arrangements. The premier has previously said the Convention Centre takes bookings four years in advance, creating another time challenge. "For the poor people that I have imposed this on, it is actually terrifying," he told a budget estimates committee in June. "They have got no choice but to get to work under the assumption that we may get this. "If we do not find out until later in the year, hypothetically, that we get it, then the window will almost be too small for us to start to do any preparatory work." On Wednesday the Premier said the government had "no choice" but to get on with preparations as this was "pretty much the next biggest event in a single city outside of the Olympics". "We start those preparations not presumptively, but pragmatically," he said. "Given that if we want to host the event as well as we know we can, that we're not caught out by a late decision ... about which country is going to host the event." Mr Malinauskas said "the best thing that can happen here" is a quick decision on hosting rights. "Because then it allows for the respective host city and country to get on with the task," he said. "I just hope there's a resolution soon."
ABC News
33 minutes ago
- ABC News
Information kept secret, despite senior Tasmanian official questioning why redactions made
A senior Tasmanian department official internally suggested some of the redactions to a Right to Information document did not "stack up", before the document was ultimately sent redacted to the ABC. The ABC had requested department correspondence on the issue of Tasmanian children being kept in watch houses, also known as reception prisons. An "issues register" document detailing staff concerns and Department of Justice responses to those concerns was accidentally sent unredacted to the ABC in July. It was followed minutes later by the properly redacted version, which blacked out most of the 14-page document. Having access to both versions of the same document has allowed the ABC to analyse what was redacted and scrutinise the reasons given for each redaction. The ABC has since used the Right to Information (RTI) process to ask for internal communications on the decision to redact the document. Newly obtained emails show one senior government employee had reservations about the reason for blacking out some of the information in the document, before its release. The director of the Justice Department's Office of the Secretary, which is the office that manages RTI requests, said she was unsure that a legal exemption for personally identifiable information could be used. In an email to the RTI officer, she wrote: "I've just had a look at the proposed redactions and my only additional comment for your consideration is in relation to page 2 and the s36 exemption. Doesn't that require the identity of the person to be ascertainable from the information? If so, I'm not sure the two dot points redacted stack up?" The correspondence in the emails ends there. The ABC has asked what the response was to the email. The two dot points suggested, and ultimately redacted for the reason of personally identifiable information, read: The dot points were examples prison staff gave for why the environment of a watch house may be unsuitable for young people. Section 36 is an exemption under Tasmanian RTI legislation that stops personally identifying information from being made public, as a protective measure. The legislation states: Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this act would involve the disclosure of the personal information of a person other than the person making an application under section 13. It defines personal information as being information in which an individual's identity is "apparent or reasonably ascertainable". Before obtaining these internal emails, the use of section 36 in this watch house document had already been slammed by an RTI expert. Johan Lidberg, an access to information researcher at Monash University, said the raw document, which ABC was sent by mistake, proved there were no names or personally identifying information contained in it, including the two points questioned in this email. The director at the Centre for Public Integrity, Geoffrey Watson SC, also said the law was clear. "Now the law on that is very clear, that there is a presumption in favour of granting access. "If there is a doubt about it, then the documents should be produced." The original decision to redact the dot points stated that: "The personal information of people who have been held at a watch-house in either the Hobart or Launceston Reception prisons is not in the public domain and those persons might suffer discrimination by reason of their having been in these facilities if disclosed." Asked why the redactions were made despite internal uncertainty over them, a Department of Justice spokesperson said responsibility sat with the "RTI delegated officers" who make decisions under the Right to Information Act 2009. "Although the department has in place a quality assurance process relating to RTI applications, which may involve feedback to the delegated officer, under section 50 of the act a delegate must not be unduly influenced in the exercise of the power to make decisions in accordance with the act," the spokesperson said. "As with any quality assurance feedback relating to RTI applications, the delegated officer will note any feedback, whether it be administrative, typographical or interpretive and then confirm and release their decision, in accordance with the act." In the "issues register", prison staff told the Department of Justice that children and young people endure trauma while in adult prison watch-houses, saying they are unable to access basic hygiene, health care or support. Children can also spend days in what is meant to be temporary detention, according to a report by Tasmania's Custodial Inspector. Staff reported "high anxiety levels" and stress, saying they struggled to manage risks to detainees and to themselves. They have urgently requested measures such as body-worn cameras to allay workplace risks — which the department said is expected to be operational by the end of October this year. The department said all staff in reception prisons would be required to activate the cameras for all interactions involving children and young people in watch houses. Watch house cells are where children and adults charged with offences await court appearance, police interview or bail. They are adult custodial facilities meant for temporary detention, and are not child-focused. Children as young as 10 years old can be held in watch houses. Since 2023, the longest period a child or young person was held in a watch-house was four days and seven hours, the Department of Justice disclosed in its response to a previous RTI request. Centre for Public Integrity's Geoffrey Watson said Right to Information systems were "aspirational stuff" and intended to improve society.
SBS Australia
33 minutes ago
- SBS Australia
These protests want to 'take our country back'. But the real issues run much deeper
Groups of Australians are planning to demonstrate on 31 August for the controversial 'March For Australia' protests, which call for an end to what organisers describe as reclamation of Australia's identity and "mass migration". The movement has stirred strong reactions online. Influencer Abbie Chatfield condemned the rallies as "racist", "bigoted", "disgusting" and "terrifying". Supporters argue the protests represent concerns about Australia's future and immigration levels. But experts have warned that the "anti-immigration protests" stem from misinformation and fear, rather than evidence that migrants are responsible for the country's social and economic challenges. What is the 'March for Australia'? On 31 August, six events are being planned across Australia as part of the 'March For Australia' protests. Organisers claim "endless migration, weak leadership and political cowardice" have caused Australia to change "in ways most of us never agreed to". SBS News has contacted the organisers for comment. One flyer read: "It's time to take our country back. It's time to defend our way of life. It's time to defend our culture. Stop mass immigration now." LISTEN TO While details of the protest on the site are minimal, the group has emphasised one rule for the march — "no foreign flags". Instead, they have called for a "sea of red and blue", with Australian ensigns and Eureka flags. It's still unclear who exactly is organising the march, with several groups allegedly attempting to take ownership. The official March for Australia Instagram account, created this week, has distanced itself from extremist figures like Thomas Sewell, the leader of the neo-Nazi National Socialist Network, who allegedly tried to claim the march as his group's event. A March for Australia spokesperson told SBS News "attempts to hijack March For Australia for other issues, or to make it about any one group, are not in the spirit of the movement that we have taken custody of." "Recent claims have been made by various groups attempting to take ownership of March For Australia or attach their own agendas to it. We wish to make it clear: the organisers are not members of, nor acting on behalf of, any other group." Last weekend, Sewell led a group of masked neo-Nazis through Melbourne's CBD just after midnight. "These protests should be condemned by every Australian," Chatfield said in an Instagram reel. Right-wing political commentator Rukshan Fernando was among a number of accounts posting they were "looking forward to marching". Why are these protests happening now? Liz Allen, a demographer at the Australian National University Centre for Social Policy Research, said she is not surprised by the March for Australia protests. "I'm not surprised that people holding such views would mobilise and want to be heard," she told SBS News. "Increasingly, we're seeing Australians fear that they're being left behind and that fear — whether real or simply perceived — is something that we cannot ignore." While anti-immigration sentiment is not new in Australia, Allen said it has evolved. Anti-immigration sentiment is becoming more coordinated and is borrowing international taglines and catchphrases, where Allen says in the past it has been more ad hoc and reactionary. However, she hesitates to say the sentiment is imported. "Australia doesn't need to import racism. Australia has its own homegrown racism," she said. Polling by the Lowy Institute in June 2025 found 53 per cent of Australians think the number of migrants coming into the country each year is "too high", up five points from the previous year. Meanwhile, 38 per cent said immigration levels were "about right", and only 7 per cent thought they were "too low". Compared internationally, Australians appear slightly less anti-immigration than other countries. A 2023 Ipsos survey showed 34 per cent of Australians thought the country would be stronger if immigration stopped, compared with a global average of 43 per cent. But still, half of Australians believed "society is broken" and the "country is in decline". Misinformation and the scapegoating of migrants Central to the rise in anti-immigration sentiment is misinformation that blames migrants for deeper societal problems. Common myths driving anti-immigration sentiment include claims that migrants suppress wages, steal local jobs, or inflate house prices — all of which Allen describes as "nonsense". Professor Daniel Ghezelbash, a scholar of international and comparative refugee and migration law from the University of New South Wales, recommends a "fact sandwich" approach to counter false claims. "When Australia's borders were closed during the COVID-19 pandemic, migration was at its lowest level in a century. Yet, housing prices still went up," Ghezelbash told SBS News. 1. Warn about the myth : "Instead of tackling the real issues, some political actors are just blaming migrants as if they're the reason housing has become unaffordable." 2. Point out the fallacy : "They're oversimplifying the problem to distract you from the actual causes." 3. End with the fact: "There are many factors that are driving Australia's housing crisis. And migration is just one very small piece of the puzzle." But Allen notes there is a large problem in Australia where not everyone is "getting a go", and said this is a sign of a more complex root issue behind anti-immigration sentiment. Four key drivers behind anti-immigration sentiment Allen highlights four major crises fuelling fear and resentment that can manifest as anti-immigration sentiment: housing affordability, climate change, gender inequality and economic insecurity. "These big four come together and create a tipping point that undermines the certainty of tomorrow — and with that comes a great deal of fear," she said. "It's not the fault of migrants, that's not the fault of immigration, but rather a deep-seated fear that someone else is getting or potentially getting an opportunity that you may not have the luxury of obtaining," Allen said. She describes it as "fear of the other", of being "taken over" or "left behind". "That loss of hope means fear can take over, and that's a very powerful emotion at the heart of anti-immigration sentiment," she said. The cost: declining social cohesion The latest survey from the Scanlon Foundation in late 2024 found social cohesion in Australia remains at a record low. Social cohesion is measured by attitudes across five key domains: belonging, worth, social justice, participation and acceptance. While most Australians support non-discriminatory immigration policies, the report found anti-immigration attitudes correlate strongly with economic and housing worries, rather than views on diversity or multiculturalism. It found almost half of Australians (49 per cent) believe immigration levels are too high. LISTEN TO James O'Donnell, the report's author, said economic stress and hardship remain the greatest challenges to social cohesion. "When people are worried about the economy and when they themselves experience unemployment, financial stress, their attitudes towards migration deteriorate," he told SBS News. "They're more likely to say things like, 'migrants increase house prices' or 'they take away jobs'." Allen said the timing of the March for Australia protests is particularly concerning amid already fragile social cohesion in Australia. "It's not a fault of immigration, but rather a number of significant social and economic issues that come together and undermine the potential future of the nation," she said. Allen said the key to countering anti-immigration protests and sentiment lies in restoring hope by addressing the real social and economic problems facing Australia and cutting through misinformation. "The root cause of these issues is fear — and fear is a beast that can quickly corrupt and overtake," she said. "Restoring hope is free of charge. "We can restore hope by tackling the issues that are at the core here: housing, economic security, gender equality, and climate change. "The rest is a distraction."
