Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra
The bipartisanship about the path to a long-term settlement in the Middle East has finally been irrevocably broken.
The shadow cabinet, meeting Tuesday morning, did not just confirm the Coalition’s disagreement with the government’s decision to recognise a Palestinian state. It also decided that recognition would be revoked by a Coalition government.
In a statement after the shadow cabinet, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and the shadow foreign minister, Michaelia Cash, said: “A Coalition government would only recognise a Palestine state at the conclusion of a proper peace process”.
On Monday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced Australia would recognise a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly next month. The government is not putting preconditions on recognition, but is relying on assurances the Palestinian Authority has given.
In its statement, the opposition said Albanese had specified recognition was “predicated on there being no role for Hamas; the demilitarisation of Palestine; an acknowledgement of Israel’s right to exist; free and fair elections in Palestine; and, reform of [Palestinian] governance, financial transparency and the education system, including international oversight to guard against the incitement of violence and hatred”.
But, the Coalition said, “unfortunately the Albanese government has made it clear that they will still recognise a Palestinian state, regardless of whether or not their own conditions are met.”
Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison said that in government, the Coalition had listed Hamas as a terrorist organisation. “Our Labor successors have regrettably rewarded them through this action.
“I know this is not their intention, but it is the result. The caravan of appeasement is not one we should join”, Morrison said on his website.
While the split in bipartisanship has come to a head this week, it has been in the making for a considerable time.
The Coalition has been steadfastly rusted onto Israel (despite having some members, including Ley, who in the past had expressed support for the Palestinians).
In recent years, Labor has become increasingly divided between those wanting to stick to its traditional alignment with Israel and a growing number of pro-Palestinian supporters, who eventually succeeded in getting recognition of a Palestinian state into the party’s platform.
In the recent election, the Liberals pitched to and attracted many Jewish voters, while Labor was concerned with keeping the support of its Muslim constituency, located especially in western Sydney.
The government’s criticism of Israel’s approach to the war has intensified as the conflict has dragged on with no sign of resolution.
Once the current conflict reached its present impasse, with ever-more graphic footage of the suffering in Gaza, and countries such as France, Britain and Canada signalling Palestinian recognition, it was almost inevitable the Albanese government would follow, and the Coalition would oppose that decision.
The government argues something has to be done. It chooses to believe assurances given by the Palestinian Authority. It speaks as though the intractable players in this Middle East conflict can be influenced, even though the ongoing conflict makes this a heroic assumption.
Albanese undertook a round of Tuesday interviews to defend the government’s decision. Often reluctant to spell out the content of private conversations with overseas counterparts, the prime minister is being expansive about his conversation last Thursday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“It was a conversation which reflected the conversation that I had with him in 2024. And I expressed to him my concern that he was putting the same argument that he did in 2024, that military action against Hamas would produce an outcome. That hasn’t produced an outcome. What it’s produced is a lot of innocent lives, tens of thousands of innocent lives being lost.
“I expressed my concern about the blocking of aid that occurred as a conscious decision by the Israeli government earlier this year,” Albanese said.
“He again reiterated to me what he has said publicly as well, which is to be in denial about the consequences that are occurring for innocent people.”
Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
