ICJ ruling condemns Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories

Recognising Palestine and taking decisive diplomatic actions will not only fulfill a moral and legal imperative for the Labor government but also secure the trust and support of its voter base.

The International Court of Justice has unequivocally ruled that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal under international law and the court’s findings highlight numerous breaches of international statutes by Israel, mandating an immediate cessation of the occupation and full reparations for the extensive damage inflicted since 1967. This landmark ruling represents the most definitive legal condemnation of Israel’s actions by an international judicial body to date.

Despite the historical tendency of major powers to dismiss unfavourable rulings from international institutions, the ICJ’s decision has intensified calls for tangible actions, particularly from the Australian government. In response, Foreign Minister Senator Penny Wong issued a statement urging Israel to halt the expansion of settlements and to curb settler violence in the West Bank and the Albanese government, which keeps saying it is “committed to a two-state solution” without doing anything to move towards that position, is now evaluating potential measures, including financial sanctions and travel bans on specific Israeli settlers and groups implicated in violence.

Senator Wong emphasised that sanctions are “a significant measure”, usually reserved as a last resort in foreign policy, with individuals targeted by these sanctions have been involved in severe acts of violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, including beatings, sexual assaults, and torture, resulting in serious injuries and fatalities. While Senator Wong insists that these sanctions reflect careful consideration, the measures have been criticised as insufficient, reflecting a continued reluctance to alienate influential pro-Israel lobbies within Australia.

The actions of the Israel Defense Forces are undeniably acts of genocide, particularly given the deliberate targeting of non-combatants, children, and the destruction of essential infrastructure such as schools and hospitals, and this factor adds a grave dimension to this issue – despite what the government of Israel continues to claim, this is not a conventional military conflict but a systematic campaign against a civilian population, demanding a swift and robust international response which, so far, has been lacking.

Senator Wong’s call to stop settlement expansion in the West Bank without an equal demand to withdraw, also suggests a tacit acceptance of the current status quo, which many argue is insufficient and advocates insist on a reversion to the pre-1967 borders, a stance supported by a substantial segment of the international community. Some commentators argue that a return to the 1948 borders is critical, though this is viewed as politically impractical by most experts – at this stage. The two-state solution, while contentious among Palestinians, remains the most widely endorsed framework for resolving the conflict.

The Australian government’s position, while rhetorically firm, continues to navigate the delicate balance of international diplomacy and domestic political pressures. The ICJ’s ruling, however, injects renewed urgency into the debate, compelling nations such as Australia to reconcile their foreign policy with the imperatives of international justice and human rights, and ignore the demands and influence of domestic conservative Israel lobby groups. This path forward is fraught with challenges, but the strong calls for justice and accountability cannot be ignored forever.

Australia can assert influence and support Palestine through stronger diplomatic action

While the Australian government would not be expected to take extreme measures such as physically or militarily intervening in the conflict, there remains a broad spectrum of actions it could undertake to support Palestine, including imposing sanctions on the Israeli government, severing trade relationships with Israel, recalling the Israeli ambassador, and recognising the state of Palestine – which the Labor Party promised when they returned to government – and extending travel bans to more Israeli citizens involved in the occupation and violence. Such actions would signal a significant shift in Australia’s foreign policy, demonstrating a commitment to holding Israel accountable for its violations of international law.

Critics may argue that these measures will not immediately halt the ongoing violence in Gaza, and they would be correct. However, the weight of the ICJ’s ruling provides a legal and moral foundation for these actions. By aligning its policies with international law, Australia can exert increased pressure on Israel to change its behaviour in the occupied territories, including a withdrawal from the West Bank and Golan Heights, as well as ceasing and removing the military slaughter in Gaza. The initial sanctions targeting seven Israeli settlers and a youth group are a minimalist first step, but they must be expanded to create meaningful impact.

Drawing parallels with the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, history has shown that sustained economic and diplomatic pressure can lead to significant political change. It took years of concerted international efforts to dismantle apartheid, and a similar approach is necessary to address the Israeli occupation. While immediate political solution for those suffering in Gaza is unlikely, a robust and persistent stance by the international community, including Australia, can contribute to longer-term solutions. However, Palestine cannot wait as long as South Africa did to end apartheid, which essentially took over 30 years: immediate action is required by the international community to end the genocide in Gaza and bring lasting peace to the Middle East.

The role of Australia’s foreign minister is undeniably complex, particularly in the delicate arena of Middle Eastern politics. Directly confronting allies, such as the United States, is not a straightforward option, given Australia’s limited influence in the region and its broader strategic interests and this geopolitical reality necessitates a nuanced approach, balancing diplomatic relations while advocating for justice and human rights.

Despite these constraints, Australia can still assert its independence and express strong, principled views. Diplomatic channels can be used effectively to convey Australia’s stance without jeopardising essential alliances. Senator Wong – or any foreign minister – must navigate this fine line, articulating Australia’s positions firmly but tactfully. The challenge lies in reconciling Australia’s strategic interests with its commitment to upholding international law and supporting human rights.

Recognition of the state of Palestine would be a powerful statement, aligning Australia with the growing number of countries acknowledging Palestinian statehood. Such recognition would not only bolster Palestine’s international standing but also highlight Australia’s commitment to a just and lasting peace in the region. Similarly, recalling the Israeli ambassador and severing trade ties would send a clear message of disapproval of Israel’s actions, reinforcing the international community’s calls for accountability.

Extending travel bans to more Israeli citizens involved in the occupation and violence would further isolate those responsible and increase pressure on Israel to change its policies. While these measures alone will not resolve the conflict, they represent critical steps towards a comprehensive international response. However, these actions also involve political courage and the Australian government has shown little empathy for the plight of the Palestinian people so far. Certainly, the diplomatic path is fraught with challenges, but the pursuit of justice and peace demands bold and decisive action.

Chinese-brokered unity deal marks a major development in Middle Eastern diplomacy

A significant event has also taken place that has largely gone unreported in the Australian media: a unity deal brokered by the Chinese government involving Hamas, Fatah, and 12 other Palestinian political groups. This development is particularly noteworthy as Fatah and Hamas have been political adversaries for decades and the accord, which fosters political accommodation among these 14 groups, marks a potential turning point for Palestinian governance and unity.

The efficacy of this accord remains uncertain as it has not yet been tested. However, it represents a crucial step towards the full recognition of the state of Palestine. One common criticism has been that Palestine lacks a unified government capable of effectively governing, yet, it is crucial to consider the severe constraints faced by any Palestinian administration: governing an area likened to an open-air concentration camp, under blockade by land and sea, subjected to apartheid-like conditions by Israel, deprived of free movement, and continuously bombarded and attacked by Israeli Defense Forces and settlers in the West Bank. The conditions are such that running an effective government is an extraordinary challenge.

This unity deal is significant for several reasons, not least because it signals China’s entrance into Middle Eastern diplomacy in a substantial way. By brokering this deal, China is stepping into a role traditionally occupied by Western powers, which have historically exacerbated problems in the region and this move can be seen as China asserting that it can resolve conflicts in the Middle East more effectively than the West. While the deal will not end the conflict immediately, it is a critical development that could pave the way for more significant changes.

Historically, the disunity among Palestinian resistance groups has been a major obstacle and this lack of cohesion among these groups has meant that the Palestinian people had little choice but to follow fragmented leaderships. The unity brokered by China could be a game changer, and bringing together factions that have historically despised each other means there is now a potential for concerted and effective action.

China’s intervention also signifies its growing role on the world stage. By facilitating this unity deal, China is demonstrating its capability and willingness to engage in high-stakes international diplomacy, a domain where it has previously been reticent. This development is likely to provoke a strong reaction from Western media outlets, especially those aligned with the interests of the News Corporation empire, as it highlights a diplomatic achievement that the West has failed to secure.

The United States, in particular, has been largely dormant in Middle Eastern diplomacy over the past couple of decades and its current approach is a relic of Cold War politics, inadequate for addressing the contemporary complexities of the region. China’s proactive stance in brokering the Palestinian unity deal exposes the limitations of the American and broader Western diplomatic strategies, potentially heralding a new era of Chinese influence in the Middle East. The impact of this deal remains to be seen, but it undoubtedly represents a critical shift in the dynamics of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the broader geopolitical landscape.

Labor Party faces internal tensions and electoral risk over Palestine

Amidst these international developments, the recent NSW Labor Conference held at Sydney Town Hall highlights the growing internal tensions within the Australian Labor Party regarding the recognition of Palestinian statehood. The conference – again – voted to urge the Australian government to promptly recognise Palestine as a sovereign and independent state, echoing a similar motion approved at the previous year’s national conference. This repeated call, which also reflects the contents of the Labor Plarform agreed to in 2021, raises a critical question: what is the Labor government waiting for?

A clear schism is developing between the parliamentary members and the Labor rank-and-file membership, where the latter are striving to adhere to core Labor values of justice, human dignity, and solidarity, while the former appears indifferent and cautious, potentially gambling on the belief that this issue will not critically affect their safe seats in Western Sydney at the next election. However, this assumption may prove to be a significant miscalculation.

The frustration and impatience within key Labor-held electorates are palpable. Western Sydney, with its substantial and vocal pro-Palestinian community, is particularly aggrieved by the federal government’s inaction. This discontent was visibly manifested when a large crowd of pro-Palestinian protesters gathered outside the Town Hall during the conference, some of whom heckled delegates as they exited. The activists voiced their frustrations over the government’s failure to recognise Palestine and demanded more robust diplomatic actions against Israel, which has been responsible for the deaths of over 40,000 Palestinians in Gaza over the past 10 months and, according to Lancet magazine, possibly up to 186,000 deaths.

This growing dissatisfaction poses a potential electoral risk for the Labor government and the party’s traditional support base in Western Sydney, which has historically delivered safe seats, may not be as secure as assumed. If the government continues to delay decisive action on Palestinian statehood, it risks alienating a significant portion of its voter base, who are deeply committed to justice for Palestine. This issue could become a focal point in the next federal election, with voters seeking to hold their representatives accountable for their stance on this critical international issue.

The broader implications of inaction extend beyond electoral politics. By failing to respond decisively to the calls for recognising Palestinian statehood, the Labor government undermines its own professed values and principles, and it also risks diminishing Australia’s credibility on the international stage as a nation committed to upholding human rights and international law.

Of course, the current hesitation to take stronger action will be influenced by various factors, including geopolitical considerations and domestic political calculations. However, the growing discontent within the party and among the electorate suggests that the Labor government cannot afford to remain passive. Recognising Palestine as a sovereign state would not only align with international legal standards, as emphasised by the decision by the ICJ, but it would also resonate deeply with the values and expectations of many Labor supporters, as well as many members of the general community.

The Labor government’s lack of action in addressing the concerns of Palestinians and recognising Palestinian statehood may have significant repercussions in the next election and the discontent within the party and among key electorates in Western Sydney cannot be ignored. The government must reconcile its policies with the core values of justice and human dignity that it professes to uphold, or it risks facing a strong electoral backlash. Recognising Palestinian statehood and taking decisive diplomatic actions will not only fulfill a moral and legal imperative but also secure the trust and support of its voter base, ensuring a stronger and more unified party moving forward.