Australia will recognize a Palestinian state, Prime Minister Albanese says
His remarks followed weeks of urging from within his Cabinet and from many in Australia to recognize a Palestinian state and amid growing criticism from officials in his government over suffering in Gaza, which Albanese on Monday referred to as a "humanitarian catastrophe."
Australia's government has also criticized plans announced in recent days by Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu for a sweeping new military offensive in Gaza.
Albanese says conditions must be met for Palestine recognition
Albanese told reporters after a Cabinet meeting Monday that Australia's decision to recognize a Palestinian state will be formalized at the United Nations General Assembly in September. The acknowledgement was "predicated on commitments Australia has received from the Palestinian Authority," Albanese said.
Those commitments included no role for Hamas in a Palestinian government, demilitarization of Gaza and the holding of elections, he said.
"A two-state solution is humanity's best hope to break the cycle of violence in the Middle East and to bring an end to the conflict, suffering and starvation in Gaza," Albanese said.
"The situation in Gaza has gone beyond the world's worst fears," he said. "The Israeli government continues to defy international law and deny sufficient aid, food and water to desperate people, including children."
Netanyahu rebuked Australia before the announcement
Ahead of Albanese's announcement, Netanyahu on Sunday criticized Australia and other European countries that have moved to recognize a Palestinian state.
"To have European countries and Australia march into that rabbit hole ... this canard, is disappointing and I think it's actually shameful," the Israeli leader said.
Australia has designated Hamas a terrorist entity and Albanese repeated Monday his government's calls for the group to return Israeli hostages held since Oct. 7, 2023.
The Australian leader last week spoke to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whose authority administers parts of the occupied West Bank, supports a two-state solution and cooperates with Israel on security matters. Abbas has agreed to conditions with Western leaders, including Albanese, as they prepared to recognize a Palestinian state.
"This is an opportunity to deliver self-determination for the people of Palestine in a way that isolates Hamas, disarms it and drives it out of the region once and for all," Albanese said. He added that Hamas did not support a two-state solution.
Recognition is growing, but is largely symbolic without the U.S.
Nearly 150 of the 193 members of the United Nations have already recognized Palestinian statehood, most of them decades ago. The United States and other Western powers have held off, saying Palestinian statehood should be part of a final agreement resolving the decades-old Middle East conflict.
Recognition announcements are largely symbolic and are rejected by Israel, and by the United States -- the only country with any real leverage over Netanyahu. Israel's leader said this month that he would not accept Palestinian Authority involvement in a government for Palestine.
A two-state solution would see a state of Palestine created alongside Israel in most or all of the occupied West Bank, the war-ravaged Gaza Strip and annexed east Jerusalem, territories Israel seized in the 1967 Mideast war that the Palestinians want for their state.
Albanese dismissed suggestions Monday that the move was solely symbolic.
"This is a practical contribution towards building momentum," he said. "This is not Australia acting alone."
Albanese had discussed Australia's decision with the leaders of Britain, France, New Zealand and Japan, he said. He also had a "long discussion" with Netanyahu this month, he added.
In neighboring New Zealand, Foreign Minister Winston Peters said Monday his government "will carefully weigh up its position" on recognizing a Palestinian state before making a formal decision in September.
"New Zealand has been clear for some time that our recognition of a Palestinian state is a matter of when, not if," Peters said in a statement.
Australian Jewish and Palestinian groups criticized the move
After Albanese's announcement Monday, Israel's envoy to Australia said the move undermined Israel's security.
"By recognising a Palestinian state now, Australia elevates the position of Hamas, a group it acknowledges as a terrorist organisation," Amir Maimon posted to X.
"This commitment removes any incentive or diplomatic pressure for the Palestinians to do the things that have always stood in the way of ending the conflict," spokesperson for the Executive Council of the Australian Jewry Alex Ryvchin said in a statement.
Meanwhile, President of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network Nasser Mashni decried Albanese's recognition as too late and "completely meaningless" while the country continues to trade with Israel.
He told reporters in Melbourne on Monday that the move would do nothing to end the "ongoing genocide in Gaza which has been live streamed for the entire world for two years."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Diplomat
an hour ago
- The Diplomat
CEAPAD and Japan's Cautious Approach to Palestine
There is a growing push by G-7 member states to frame Palestinian recognition as diplomatic censure of Israel's conduct in Gaza. France has pledged unconditional recognition; the United Kingdom has announced plans to recognize Palestine at the United Nations General Assembly absent 'substantive steps' toward a ceasefire; and Canada has joined the chorus, conditional on Palestinian Authority reforms. Rather than aligning with this momentum, Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Hayashi Yoshimasa reiterated Tokyo's commitment to 'supporting progress for peace,' including 'the appropriate timing and methods' for advancing that goal. This careful positioning echoes earlier remarks by Japanese Foreign Minister Iwaya Takeshi, who reaffirmed Japan's longstanding support for a two-state solution and spotlighted Japan's flagship mechanism to channel aid and foster peace: the Conference on Cooperation among East Asian Countries for Palestinian Development (CEAPAD). Technocratic and apolitical by design, CEAPAD encapsulates Japan's longstanding approach to the Israel-Palestine issue – cautious, development-oriented, and rooted in quiet multilateralism. This preference has shaped Japan's engagement since it became one of the most steadfast bilateral supporters of Palestinian development among G-7 nations, as reflected in its extensive aid portfolio – over $2.6 billion disbursed to date, including $230 million since October 2023 alone. In March 2025, Japan, for the first time, received wounded Palestinians for medical treatment. Tokyo's approach, though consistent, now stands in sharper relief as global diplomacy recalibrates in response to the Gaza War's devastation. CEAPAD was launched in 2013, during a window of relative diplomatic opportunity shaped by the Arab Spring's aftermath and the Obama administration's cautious optimism. More than a decade later, the conflict-averse logic underpinning CEAPAD remains unchanged. Its fourth meeting (CEAPAD IV) was held in Kuala Lumpur in July 2025 – nearly two years after an attack on Israelis by Hamas triggered a massive Israeli invasion that has killed over 63,000 people. Yet despite the ongoing conflict, the forum – attended by Japan, ASEAN states, South Korea, Palestine, and the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) – offered little beyond routine calls for humanitarian access, reconstruction, and a reaffirmation of the two-state solution. Its 2025 action plan emphasized capacity-building and development support, once again highlighting the Jericho Agro-Industrial Park (JAIP) – a 'first-of-its-kind' initiative conceived nearly two decades ago. Yet, JAIP now reads less as a forward-looking strategy and more as a legacy project, emblematic of CEAPAD's continuity at the expense of relevance amid radically altered realities on the ground. This cautious logic extended to Japan's most recent tenure on the United Nations Security Council (2023–2024), where it adhered to familiar lines: condemning Hamas, affirming Israel's right to self-defense within international law, and supporting humanitarian aid to Gaza. But this formulaic posture quickly buckled under pressure. Japan's initial reluctance to label the October 7 attacks as 'terrorism' drew accusations of hedging, even as officials framed it as 'flexibility.' Japan's subsequent support for humanitarian resolutions – occasionally diverging from U.S. positions – was meant to convey neutrality but failed to persuade. Its rejection of a Russian-sponsored resolution, citing the absence of Hamas condemnation, was widely read in Arab capitals as tacit approval of Israel's campaign, revealing the limits of Tokyo's risk-averse, rules-based diplomacy at a time when moral clarity was increasingly expected. Such diplomatic hedging reflects deeper constraints that have long shaped Japan's role in the Middle East. More than 90 percent of its oil imports come from the region, reinforcing the imperative to maintain stable ties with Gulf producers. Constitutional pacifism limits Tokyo to humanitarian and development roles, while the strength of the Japan-U.S. alliance – underpinned by Washington's staunch support for Israel – discourages political positioning that might jeopardize this strategic cornerstone. CEAPAD, in this light, is not an outlier but a microcosm of the dilemmas that have long defined Japan's regional engagement. Designed to avoid overt political confrontation, CEAPAD now struggles to respond meaningfully to the very crisis it was meant to address. Japan's tendency to follow rather than shape diplomatic responses has cast it less as a principled actor than a hand-wringing one. The dissonance is particularly stark at home. While public dissent in Japan historically remains subdued, the Gaza War has elicited sustained mobilization – rallies in Shibuya, persistent campus encampments, lone protesters holding banners for months. Even municipal actors have broken with precedent: Nagasaki's city council passed a rare resolution urging diplomatic pressure in support of Gaza, and the city's mayor declined to invite the Israeli ambassador to its annual Peace Memorial Ceremony. In the corporate sphere, Itochu Corporation withdrew from defense partnerships with Israel's Elbit Systems in early 2024, with Nippon Express soon following. These signals of domestic unease have not shifted official policy, but they expose a widening gap between Japan's bureaucratic steadiness and the moral urgency resonating across parts of its public and corporate sectors. CEAPAD's internal divisions mirror the broader diplomatic gridlock. While launched by Japan, the forum includes ASEAN members with sharply divergent positions on the conflict. Malaysia has adopted a starkly pro-Hamas stance, refusing Israeli ship entries and accusing Israel of genocide. Indonesia has endorsed South Africa's genocide case and called for Israel's suspension from the United Nations. Brunei supports full U.N. membership for Palestine. At the other end, Singapore and the Philippines reflect a more cautious line, endorsing the two-state solution but resisting punitive measures. Crucially, the Palestinian delegation at CEAPAD IV was led by a West Bank-based minister with no authority in Gaza. Since Hamas seized control of the enclave in 2007, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has played no role in its day-to-day governance of Gaza. Long before the current war, Hamas oversaw civil administration, managed aid, and employed tens of thousands of civil servants – including teachers, police, and bureaucrats – forming the core of Gaza's public sector. Despite the war's devastation, fragments of this apparatus remain intact. CEAPAD, in effect, channels development support through a leadership that has been structurally excluded from half the territory it claims to represent. The PA's legitimacy crisis compounds the problem. A poll by the Arab World for Research and Development (AWRAD) found that only 31 percent of Gazans support a PA-led government, while 47 percent prefer a national unity arrangement. In the West Bank, just 10 percent back the PA, with 25 percent favoring Hamas. Across both territories, over 60 percent of respondents describe the PA as a burden. CEAPAD's continued focus on West Bank institutions and PA-centric frameworks only deepens its disconnect from Palestinian political realities. UNRWA's mounting controversies have further exposed CEAPAD's institutional fragility. It is now entangled in mounting legal and political controversies. A new U.S. lawsuit filed in August 2025 accuses the agency of aiding Hamas and Hezbollah, following the Trump administration's rollback of immunity protections. This follows earlier suits filed by victims of the October 7 attack. At CEAPAD IV, Iwaya reiterated Japan's intent to 'consider necessary assistance' to UNRWA, while encouraging 'enhancement of its governance.' Yet that message sits uneasily with the agency's deteriorating operational environment. Recent Israeli legislation has banned UNRWA operations in parts of East Jerusalem and sharply curtailed its access to Gaza. Japan's temporary funding suspension – later reversed – was emblematic of the reputational fallout that now shadows CEAPAD's legitimacy. This ideological dissonance hampers CEAPAD's ability to function as a strategic forum. The forum's lowest-common-denominator messaging—'two-state solution,' 'capacity-building,' 'aid delivery'—feels increasingly unmoored from the cacophony on the ground. What once passed for pragmatic ambiguity now risks irrelevance. The Middle East that CEAPAD was built to serve has been remapped. The Gaza War has torn open a Pandora's box of intractable grievances, exposing the fragility of long-favored diplomatic approaches to the Palestinian question. Whether Japan is prepared to recalibrate remains to be seen. In this altered landscape, CEAPAD – once a distinctive East Asian contribution to Palestinian state-building and a clever workaround for regional sensitivities – now feels adrift. CEAPAD, and Japan's approach to Palestine more broadly, increasingly resembles old wine in an old bottle: its framework frozen in a bygone era, ill-suited to the urgency and complexity of the present.
Japan Today
2 hours ago
- Japan Today
Trump says both sides in Ukraine war will need to cede territory
FILE PHOTO: A serviceman of the 82nd Separate Airborne Assault Brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces fires a D-30 howitzer towards Russian troops, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in a front line in Donetsk region, Ukraine August 5, 2025. REUTERS/Oleksandr Ratushniak/File Photo By Trevor Hunnicutt, Steve Holland, Yuliia Dysa and Lili Bayer U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday that Kyiv and Moscow will both have to cede land to end the war in Ukraine and talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin this week will instantly show whether the Kremlin leader is willing to make a deal. European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy plan to speak with Trump ahead of his summit with Putin in Alaska on Friday, amid fears Washington may dictate unfavorable peace terms to Ukraine. Trump has hardened his stance towards Moscow by agreeing to allow additional U.S. weapons to reach Ukraine and threatening tariffs against buyers of Russian oil, but fears have persisted in Europe that he might agree to a deal that forces big concessions from Kyiv. European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said on Monday that "transatlantic unity, support to Ukraine and pressure on Russia" were needed to end the war and "prevent future Russian aggression in Europe." British Prime Minister Keir Starmer spoke to his Canadian counterpart Mark Carney on Monday and they welcomed diplomatic efforts "to bring peace and agreed that this must be built with Ukraine - not imposed upon it," according to a readout from Downing Street. Trump told a White House press conference of his talks with Putin, "This is really a feel-out meeting." He said he would know "probably in the first two minutes" whether progress was possible. "I'm going to be telling him, 'You've got to end this war,'" he said. "I'm going to go and see the parameters now. I may leave and say, 'Good luck.' And that'll be the end. I may say, 'This, this is not going to be settled.'" Trump said a future meeting could include Zelenskyy and the U.S. goal is a speedy ceasefire in the bloody 3-1/2-year-old conflict. He plans to talk to European leaders soon after his talks with Putin. Trump has in the past talked about land swaps but neither Russia nor Ukraine has been open to ceding land as part of a peace deal. Speaking to reporters, Trump said: "There'll be some land swapping going on." "I know that through Russia and through conversations with everybody, to the good of Ukraine," he said. He said Russia had occupied some "very prime territory" but "we're going to try to get some of that territory back." Zelenskyy's chief of staff Andriy Yermak said he spoke to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday, posting on X that lasting peace requires "an unconditional ceasefire as a prerequisite for substantive negotiations." Kallas said the EU would work on a 19th package of sanctions against Russia and warned against concessions to Moscow. "As far as Russia has not agreed to full and unconditional ceasefire, we should not even discuss any concessions," she said in a statement. "The sequencing of the steps is important. First an unconditional ceasefire with a strong monitoring system and ironclad security guarantees." In a post on X, Kallas said the EU would also work to increase military support for Ukraine and assistance for its budget needs and accession to the EU. UKRAINE WARNS AGAINST CONCESSIONS TO RUSSIA Zelenskiy warned on Monday that any concessions to Russia would not persuade it to stop fighting and more pressure was needed on the Kremlin. He said Russia was preparing troops for new offensives instead of getting ready to stop the war, and he urged countries to keep sanctions on Moscow until Ukraine receives security guarantees. "Russia refuses to stop the killings, and therefore must not receive any rewards or benefits," he wrote on X. "Concessions do not persuade a killer." Ukraine has sought to push back Russian invaders ever since the largest and deadliest war in Europe since World War II began in February 2022. Putin launched the invasion to take over Ukraine and expand Russia's sphere of influence. Zelenskyy spoke to the leaders of India and Saudi Arabia on Monday in an effort to mobilize support for Kyiv beyond Europe ahead of Trump's meeting with Putin. Putin has also made a flurry of calls in recent days, speaking to the leaders of China, India, Brazil and three ex-Soviet states to brief them on his contacts with the United States. Germany will convene a virtual meeting of European leaders on Wednesday to discuss how to pressure Russia ahead of a European call with Trump. Zelenskyy and EU and NATO officials are expected to join the meeting. Trump's administration has not disclosed its proposed territorial exchanges or any mechanism to ensure Putin complies with a ceasefire and does not try to overrun more of Ukraine. Trump's special envoy to Ukraine, retired U.S. Army General Keith Kellogg, earlier this year proposed a "resiliency force" of European NATO troops to secure the frontlines, as well as creating an 18-mile-wide demilitarized zone in eastern Ukraine. No U.S. troops would be involved. Britain and France in July convened a "coalition of the willing" of more than 30 nations and agreed to pursue operational plans for a European air, sea and land "reassurance force" and to "regenerate" Ukraine's military. Kellogg also said that Ukraine would not be admitted to NATO, meeting one of Putin's demands. © Thomson Reuters 2025.
Japan Today
2 hours ago
- Japan Today
Finland charges top officers of Russia-linked vessel that damaged undersea cables
FILE - The Cook Islands-registered oil tanker Eagle S is anchored near the Kilpilahti port in Porvoo on the Gulf of Finland, Dec. 30, 2024. (Jussi Nukari/Lehtikuva via AP, File) Finnish authorities said Monday they have charged the captain and two senior officers of a Russia-linked vessel that damaged undersea cables last year between Finland and Estonia. The Finnish deputy prosecutor general said in a statement that charges of aggravated criminal mischief and aggravated interference with communications were filed against the captain and first and second officers of the Eagle S oil tanker. Their names were not made public. The statement said they denied the allegations. Authorities have said the vessel dragged its anchor to damage the Estlink-2 power cable and communication links between Finland and Estonia on Dec. 25. The Kremlin previously denied involvement in damaging the infrastructure, which provides power and communication for thousands of Europeans. The Eagle S is flagged in the Cook Islands but has been described by Finnish customs officials and the European Union's executive commission as part of Russia's shadow fleet of fuel tankers. Those are aging vessels with obscure ownership, acquired to evade Western sanctions amid the war in Ukraine and operating without Western-regulated insurance. For the West, such incidents are believed to be part of widespread sabotage attacks in Europe allegedly linked to Moscow following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The undersea cables and pipelines that crisscross one of the busiest shipping lanes in Europe link Nordic, Baltic and central European countries. They promote trade, energy security and, in some cases, reduce dependence on Russian energy resources. Monday's statement alleges that 'the Eagle S, which left Russia's Ust-Luga with a cargo of oil products, is suspected of cutting five submarine cables in the Gulf of Finland by dragging its anchor on the seabed for about 90 kilometers (56 miles)." Prosecutors said the owners of the cables have suffered a total of at least 60 million euros ($69.7 million) in repair costs. 'The disruption of electricity transmission and telecommunications cables with very high transmission capacity is also suspected to have caused a serious risk to energy supply and telecommunications in Finland, although services could be secured by using alternative connections,' the statement said. It added that the defendants "consider that Finland lacks jurisdiction in the case, as the locations of the cable damages are outside Finnish territorial waters.' The damage to the Estlink 2, which can provide about half of Estonia's electricity needs in winter, did not disrupt service, although it drove up energy prices in the Baltic nations. The cable is about 90 miles (145 kilometers) long and reaches 90 meters (295 feet) at its deepest point. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
