Macron backs Albanese on Palestinian statehood in face of sharp criticism from Israel
Meloni believed the Israeli decisions 'appear to be leading to further military escalation' in the Gaza Strip, her office said, and she described this as 'unjustifiable and unacceptable'.
The Italian prime minister has argued against recognising Palestine at this point because of her concerns about the timing.
'I am very much in favour of the State of Palestine, but I am not in favour of recognising it prior to establishing it,' she told the Italian media last month.
Her comments on the Israeli plan to take Gaza City signal the growing concerns in Europe about Netanyahu and his military strategy, amid warnings about starvation, civilian casualties and lack of medical care in the territory.
Israel's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sharren Haskel, slammed Australia for planning to recognise a Palestinian state when Hamas was refusing to return the last 50 hostages it took in the October 7 attack.
'Fifty of our hostages remain in Hamas's dungeons of torture, being starved to death – being forced to dig their own graves,' she said, in a reference to a video of hostage Evyatar David released last week.
'Yet the Australian government has decided now is the right time to reward the monsters of October 7 with recognition of a Palestinian state.'
The Times of Israel reported that Hamas senior leader Ghazi Hamad said last week that the moves to recognise a Palestinian state were the result of 'the fruits' of the October 7 attacks.
'Why are all the countries recognising a Palestinian state today? Before October 7, did any country dare recognise a Palestinian state?' Hamad said on Al Jazeera.
Loading
'The fruits of October 7 are what caused the entire world to open its eyes to the Palestinian issue – and they are moving toward it with force. That is, that the Palestinian people are a people who deserve a country.'
Albanese has declared that Hamas must have no place in a Palestinian state, a position also taken by European leaders, while also saying the Australian decision on Monday was predicated on assurances that Palestine would accept Israel's right to exist.
Haskel cited the Hamas interview to accuse the Australian government of rewarding a terrorist organisation that committed the worst slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust.
'This decision by Australia won't change anything in Israel or Gaza, but let's be quite clear, this is all about domestic politics, not peace,' she said.
Palestinian critics of the Australian decision, including several cited by this masthead, also argued the formal recognition of statehood would not change anything in the war in Gaza.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AU Financial Review
16 minutes ago
- AU Financial Review
Leaked Treasury advice flags recommended outcomes for roundtable
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has lashed the Prime Minister for his decision to recognise a Palestinian state, saying it would be 'impossible' for the Palestinian Authority to meet Australia's pre-conditions around reducing the influence of Hamas. Yesterday, a Hamas co-founder welcomed Labor's move to recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly Meeting in September. 'Anthony Albanese is making a real mess of this,' Ley told Nine's Today on Wednesday. 'On the same day, a listed terror organisation calls our Prime Minister a hero, while our closest ally, the US, says that these actions are going to make peace in the region less likely.' Asked if the Coalition had committed to revoking recognition of even a functioning Palestinian state, Ley said it would be impossible for the Palestinian Authority to ensure that any elections exclude Hamas candidates. 'Look at the conditions that the Prime Minister has placed on this, that there will be general elections that don't include Hamas. Not quite sure how that happens, that Hamas' infrastructure will be dismantled completely. Does this refer to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank? ' 'So just look at those conditions that the Prime Minister has placed on this and how completely unlikely it is. Impossible, I would say that they can't be met at all.'
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Victoria is the nation's debt dunce but the competition is hotting up
Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan has previously indicated she is up for a conversation about how to broaden the tax base of states that don't have access to lucrative resource royalties. It may surprise some to learn that if you mention vertical fiscal imbalance, the premier can talk the leg off a chair. She also understands the urgency. Although a national agreement on health funding – the biggest expense items within her government's budget – commits the Commonwealth to eventually provide what the states consider a fair share, that day is still 10 years away. In the meantime, the state must find savings elsewhere or keep borrowing to make up the shortfall. This year the funding gap is $1.6 billion in a $22 billion health budget. (This column's earlier, unsolicited advice for the premier to dump her pet infrastructure project, the Suburban Rail Loop, has so far gone unheeded.) The state premiers didn't make it onto Chalmers' guest list and state/federal finances aren't on the agenda of his three-day powwow in Canberra next week. Eslake doesn't criticise these omissions from an already jam-packed roundtable program but he wonders how bad things need to get before Australia turns its mind to the thorny problem of rebalancing how money is spent and how revenue is raised across the Commonwealth. 'I think federal/state financial relations is an important issue, but I don't have a lot of company,' he laments. So, what exactly is this $900 billion elephant? According to the latest budget figures compiled by S&P Global Ratings, an international rating company that keeps a close eye on the fiscal position of the federal and state governments, this is the combined, gross debt of Australian states and territories forecast for the end of this decade. If we include the gross debt forecast to be on the federal government's own books by that stage, Australia's debt mountain will reach a $2.1 trillion base camp by June 30, 2029 along the way to a still unknown peak. Victoria, by its own budget figures, is the most indebted state in Australia. The $213 billion gross debt it has amassed as of July 1 this year represents nearly one third of the total debt currently owed by all states and territories combined. The best news for Victoria is that, in its push towards fiscal profligacy, it has some serious competition from Queensland and Tasmania. S&P lead analyst Martin Foo says while Victoria still has the weakest balance sheet of all state and territory governments, its raft of new property and payroll taxes unpopular with business has at least stabilised its fiscal position. 'We have pointed out consistently that a lot of the fiscal challenges Australia faces right now are at the state level, rather than federal level,' he says. 'Victoria has been the focus of attention for the last couple of years. Maybe it has flown under the radar a bit but some of the mid-sized and smaller states, particularly Tasmania and Queensland, are accumulating debt at a very rapid pace.' Eslake reckons his home state of Tasmania, which remains without a functioning government after two elections in the space of 15 months, already deserves Victoria's mantle as Australia's fiscal dunce. In 2019, Tasmania's gross debt was just $3.2 billion. That figure is forecast to treble this year and to increase more than six-fold from its pre-pandemic level by 2029. Loading Queensland is sharply accelerating the amount of debt it is taking on, with last year's figure of $106.6 billion forecast to nearly double by the end of the decade as the state prepares for the 2032 Olympics. Although these numbers look scarier the further you look into the future, the source of the problem is more immediate. The S&P figures show that in the last financial year, the states and territories posted a combined cash deficit of $55 billion.
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Albanese is ignoring Trump's demands – it will change our place in the world
When the world changes, it's folly not to change with it. Finding itself in an external environment that is in many respects full of shocks, the Albanese government is staking out a more independent – or at the very least, a less America-dependent – security and diplomatic stance for Australia. As is its way, rather than galloping in this direction, the government is crab walking. Anthony Albanese goes out of his way not to make a big deal of it and never wants to look like he's undermining Donald Trump. He continues to send the hefty cheques to America to keep AUKUS alive and has said several times this week that Trump is an enduring 'advocate for peace in the Middle East', which is what the US president likes to hear. But the signs of the shift are mounting. The AUKUS agreement was conceived chiefly to thwart China's territorial and defence ambitions in our larger region. Knowing that the future of AUKUS is being reconsidered by the Trump administration and that Trump is capricious and often punitive in the way he applies tariffs against those who don't dance to his tune, Australia under Albanese is nevertheless steadfastly building on a more accommodating approach towards China. The prime minister's reasoning is simple: China underpins our economy and it pays not to overtly antagonise it. Meanwhile, America remains fixated on viewing China as its great economic competitor and geopolitical rival. Albanese's point-blank rejection of a series of direct and indirect demands from Trump's Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and US government factotums to almost double its defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP is perhaps the boldest stance he has taken as PM. Albanese's continued dismissals are truly getting up the US administration's nose; various underlings are now regularly briefing reporters against Australia. And this week Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong foreshadowed the recognition of a Palestinian state, comprehensively at odds with the stance of the US, which is the Netanyahu government's chief military supplier and diplomatic enabler. These positions are not without risk, given how deeply enmeshed Australia has become in its alliance with America, and how long Australia has regarded Israel as a friend. But given the twin shocks of Trump's rapid transformation of the US government and Benjamin Netanyahu's military strategy in response to Hamas' diabolical attacks in 2023, which has failed to return all of the hostages, laid waste to Gaza, killed tens of thousands of civilians and led to widespread starvation, it's difficult to see how a prudent government could not have taken this course. Loading The adjustments taking place in our relationships are in line with broader public sentiment in Australia. Trump's Secretary of State Marco Rubio has dismissed Palestinian recognition by countries including Australia as meaningless and driven by domestic politics. In a sense, he is right. Recognition is a mostly symbolic tactic designed to impose diplomatic pressure on Israel. It might not work and probably won't while America continues to physically support Netanyahu's every action. But is Trump's foreign America First policy not also driven by his domestic political intentions? This week his vice president JD Vance said the US government would no longer send arms to Ukraine because Americans were 'sick' of their government doing so. Instead, the US will sell arms to European countries who can give them to Ukraine. Australia's strategic positions should not chop and change, but they should develop over time and reflect the general sympathies and inclinations of the bulk of its people. Because of our geographical isolation and colonial past, with a nation-state built on immigration, Australia is an outward-looking country. Most Australians see Trump for what he is: a great disruptor. Trump bases all his decisions on his own self-interest. And because he is the president and is dedicated to accruing as much personal power as possible, to the extent that he is now ignoring his own courts and militarising policing in cities that don't vote for him, those decisions and actions are expressed ultimately as being in America's own best interests.
