Australia should recognise Palestine. To not do so only rewards Israel's crimes
The momentum is driven by horror at Israel's relentless destruction in Gaza, the failure of more than 30 years of negotiations for a two-state solution since the Oslo Accords in 1993, Israel's persistent denial of Palestinian self-determination, de facto annexation of Palestinian land in the West Bank by illegal Israeli settlements and the extremism of the Netanyahu government. Also, no-one believes that the United States is an honest broker for peace, having fuelled Israeli war crimes with an endless supply of weapons and even threatening to seize Gaza.
Current moves are a long-overdue circuit-breaker in a century of conflict when everything else has failed. The Palestinians were first promised a state over a century ago. A 1947 United Nations proposal to divide the British Mandate of Palestine into two states did not go to plan.
Israel unilaterally declared statehood in 1948 after an insurgency against the British, terrorism against civilians and even assassination of UN officials. It established effective control and independence after a war with invading Arab countries. Australia recognised Israel within six months.
The Palestine Liberation Organisation declared Palestine a state in 1988. International law does not prohibit unilateral declarations, as by Kosovo in 2008, but they do not create a state unless legal criteria are met. According to classical international law, statehood is a test of power. A state exists if it has a defined territory, a permanent population, an effective government, an ability to enter into foreign relations and relative independence from other states.
Palestine largely meets these. There is international consensus that its territory is presumptively defined by the pre-1967 war borders, encompassing the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza. The precise borders remain to be agreed, but this has never been fatal to the existence of states, many of whom disagree with neighbours about borders.
There is a core national population of Palestinian residents, potentially supplemented by Palestinian refugees returning from abroad, and excluding almost 700,000 Israeli settlers.
There is a clear capacity to enter into foreign relations. Palestine engages diplomatically with other states, is an observer state in the United Nations, and makes treaties with other states.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
MP booted from NZ parliament after Palestine comments
New Zealand parliamentarian Chloe Swarbrick has been ordered to leave parliament during a heated debate over the government's response to Palestine. An urgent debate was called after the centre-right government said on Monday it was weighing up its position on whether to recognise a Palestinian state. Australia on Monday joined Canada, the UK and France in announcing it would recognise a Palestinian state at a UN conference in September. Swarbrick, who is co-leader of the Green Party, said New Zealand was a "laggard" and an "outlier" and the lack of decision was appalling before calling on some government members to support a bill to "sanction Israel for its war crimes". The bill was proposed by her party in March and is supported by all opposition parties. "If we find six of 68 government MPs with a spine, we can stand on the right side of history," Swarbrick said. Speaker Gerry Brownlee said that statement was "completely unacceptable" and she had to withdraw it and apologise. When she refused, Swarbrick was ordered to leave parliament. Brownlee later clarified Swarbrick could return on Wednesday but if she still refused to apologise she would again be removed from parliament. New Zealand has said it will make a decision in September about whether it would recognise Palestine as a state. Foreign Minister Winston Peters told parliament that during the next month the government would gather information and talk to partners, which would inform cabinet's decision. "We'll be weighing this decision carefully rather than rushing to judgement," Peters said. Along with the Green Party, opposition parties Labour and Te Pati Maori support recognition of a Palestinian state. Labour parliamentarian Peeni Henare said New Zealand had a history of standing strong on its principles and values and in this case "was being left behind".
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Two decades ago, Israel withdrew from Gaza. It has become a cautionary tale
Spanish philosopher George Santayana warned that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. This is particularly poignant as we mark this week 20 years since Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza began – a painful, high-risk effort to offer Palestinians autonomy and a foundation for peace. Two decades ago, when Israel withdrew its soldiers and dismantled settlements in Gaza, prime minister Ariel Sharon proclaimed: 'Now it is the Palestinians' turn to prove their desire for peace.' Gaza was handed over not as a reward, but as a test. That test was failed. Rather than build functioning institutions, Hamas turned Gaza into a fortress of terror. Rocket attacks on Israel surged, aid was diverted to fund tunnels and weapons, and children were indoctrinated with hatred. Gaza did not become the prototype for a Palestinian state. It has become the cautionary tale. In 2005, the international community hailed Israel's withdrawal as a bold gesture. But hindsight reveals the flaw: autonomy was granted before the foundations of self-governance were in place. Today, with the Australian government's announcement that it will recognise a Palestinian state, we risk making the same mistake again. Loading The parallels are hard to ignore. Then, as now, the world was impatient for action. But history has shown that in the Middle East, there are no shortcuts. Bold gestures are not a substitute for the hard work of peacemaking and institution-building. If Gaza proved the dangers of transferring control without credible governance, recognising a Palestinian state now, before the necessary reforms, would guarantee those failures are repeated and entrenched. Simply replacing Hamas with the unreformed Palestinian Authority (PA) - an entity plagued by corruption, weak institutions, and a 'pay for slay' terrorism reward system – will not set Palestinians up for success.
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
Two decades ago, Israel withdrew from Gaza. It has become a cautionary tale
Spanish philosopher George Santayana warned that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. This is particularly poignant as we mark this week 20 years since Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza began – a painful, high-risk effort to offer Palestinians autonomy and a foundation for peace. Two decades ago, when Israel withdrew its soldiers and dismantled settlements in Gaza, prime minister Ariel Sharon proclaimed: 'Now it is the Palestinians' turn to prove their desire for peace.' Gaza was handed over not as a reward, but as a test. That test was failed. Rather than build functioning institutions, Hamas turned Gaza into a fortress of terror. Rocket attacks on Israel surged, aid was diverted to fund tunnels and weapons, and children were indoctrinated with hatred. Gaza did not become the prototype for a Palestinian state. It has become the cautionary tale. In 2005, the international community hailed Israel's withdrawal as a bold gesture. But hindsight reveals the flaw: autonomy was granted before the foundations of self-governance were in place. Today, with the Australian government's announcement that it will recognise a Palestinian state, we risk making the same mistake again. Loading The parallels are hard to ignore. Then, as now, the world was impatient for action. But history has shown that in the Middle East, there are no shortcuts. Bold gestures are not a substitute for the hard work of peacemaking and institution-building. If Gaza proved the dangers of transferring control without credible governance, recognising a Palestinian state now, before the necessary reforms, would guarantee those failures are repeated and entrenched. Simply replacing Hamas with the unreformed Palestinian Authority (PA) - an entity plagued by corruption, weak institutions, and a 'pay for slay' terrorism reward system – will not set Palestinians up for success.
