Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra
Treasurer Jim Chalmers has been putting it succinctly, declaring it’s a question of when, not if, Australia recognises Palestine as a state.
It’s a line Foreign Minister Penny Wong used more than a year ago. This week Wong was sounding impatient. “The reason for urgency behind recognition is this. There is a risk there will be no Palestine left to recognise if the world does not act,” she said.
For the government, recognition is as much about domestic politics as foreign policy. Australia has no influence on what’s happening in the Middle East (other than donating aid). But the Australian public is increasingly horrified by the images of the humanitarian crisis.
It’s a reminder of the power of the visual. More than half a century ago, the pictures coming out of Vietnam helped turn the US public against that war.
Right now, however, Australia remains in limbo on its journey towards recognition. The destination might seem clear but the exact arrival date is less so.
Observers are expecting it by the time of the United Nations General Assembly in late September. Anthony Albanese will be there, delivering an address during leaders’ week. The announcement could be made in the run up, or in that week.
France, the United Kingdom and Canada have all flagged recognition, the latter two with varying conditions attached.
Asked in late July about whether Australia would announce recognition at the UN, Albanese said Australia would make a decision “at an appropriate time”.
“We won’t do any decision as a gesture. We will do it as a way forward if the circumstances are met,” he said. He spelled out a couple of these. “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?”
In any likely scenario, there will be no positive answers to those questions in the foreseeable future. Nor does there seem, so far, much chance the Netanyahu government in Israel will take much notice of more countries recognising Palestine. The only country, if any, it appears likely to be influenced by is the United States, and President Donald Trump’s future actions are unpredictable.
But, leaving aside the prime minister’s longstanding personal pro-Palestinian views, Albanese has to be seen to be doing something. Pressure has been long mounting in the Labor base and among the party membership for recognition. The Sydney Harbour Bridge march last weekend, attracting at least some 90,000 people (march organisers estimated many more), reemphasised to Albanese that he needs to be in tune with his base on this issue.
An instructive lesson comes from the situation in which NSW Labor Premier Chris Minns finds himself. Minns and the NSW police opposed the march going over the bridge on the grounds it would be too disruptive – they were overridden by a court decision. But ten of Minns’ caucus members marched, including environment minister Penny Sharpe.
In the federal caucus, Ed Husic, now on the backbench, is out in front on Palestine recognition. But whatever impatience there may be in caucus generally about the government’s perceived slowness, it is so far being contained. Still, Albanese won’t want to lag behind his colleagues on what is an electorally sensitive issue for Labor in some seats.
As the government prepares its timing, Albanese has embarked on a diplomatic round. It was not unexpected that he spoke with French President Emmanuel Macron this week. More surprising was his phone call with the Palestine Authority’s President Mahmoud Abbas, who is widely regarded as a discredited figure.
According to the official readout from the Prime Minister’s Office, Albanese “reiterated Australia’s call for the immediate entry of aid to meet needs of people of Gaza, a permanent ceasefire, and the release of all hostages”.
Albanese “also reinforced Australia’s commitment to a two state solution because a just and lasting peace depends upon it”. Abbas thanked the PM “for Australia’s economic and humanitarian support. The leaders discussed deepening cooperation across a range of areas, and agreed to meet on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.”
If Albanese made the point directly to Abbas that the Palestinian Authority needed to reform itself to have a role in a future Palestinian state, it was not recorded in the readout. But Albanese did tell a news conference on Thursday, “We as well want to see commitments from the Palestinian Authority, commitments of their governance reforms, of reforms in education, reforms across a whole range of issues”.
Before that conversation, Albanese had sought a call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As of Thursday, the call had not yet come.
Israeli authorities can be quick to respond to what they see as anti-Israel events in Australia. There was a social media post from the Israeli foreign minister after the bridge march, urging Australians to “wake up”.
On Thursday, Albanese was asked whether he would talk with Trump before he made the decision about Palestinian recognition. “We’re a sovereign government and Australia makes decisions on behalf of the Australian government,” he said.
Incidentally, while there has been speculation that Albanese will catch up with Trump when he is in the US in September, there don’t seem any locked-in plans.
It’s hard to get the president’s time in Washington when so many leaders are knocking on the White House door in September. And there is no guarantee the president will be in New York during the leaders’ week at the UN, or have an opportunity for a meeting if he is. When the prime minister will catch up with the president continues to be a work in progress.
The opposition, which has remained steadfastly signed up to Israel, strongly opposes Palestinian recognition, saying this would be a win for Hamas. But at least some Liberals are readjusting their rhetoric to take more account of the humanitarian disaster in Gaza.
If, or when, Labor recognises a Palestinian state, the opposition would condemn the decision. But what would it say about whether a Coalition government would reverse the decision? That might be one for the convenient line, “we’d look at that when we were in office”.
Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
