Australian Government likely to abstain in UN vote on Palestinian statehood

PETER RODGERS: The Albanese Government faces a tricky test in the upcoming debate. But however it votes, there is and will be no Palestinian state for Australia to recognise.

With the ALP platform now formally supporting Palestinian statehood, the Albanese Government soon faces a tricky question. When the UN General Assembly convenes on September 13, will Australia put its vote(s) on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where its declared policy is?

The usual raft of resolutions covering Palestinian self-determination, Palestinian refugees, financial assistance, Israeli settlements and Jerusalem will come before the General Assembly before the end of the year. There will be a pro forma flavour to much of the debate and the inevitable passage of the resolutions will make little real difference to anyone or anything. But the level of Australia’s support for Palestinian statehood may well create heartburn within Labor.

Superficially, it is quite straightforward. In 2021, the ALP national conference endorsed a position that the party:

Supports the recognition and right of Israel and Palestine to exist as two states within secure and recognised borders

Calls on the next Labor government to recognise Palestine as a state; and

Expects that this issue will be an important priority for the next Labor government.

That exact same wording was first agreed by Labor’s national conference in 2018, but only as a resolution. In 2021, it was incorporated into the policy platform which the ALP took to the May federal election. Former Labor foreign minister Bob Carr tweeted at the time, “Same wording as 2018 conference resolution but now enshrined in party platform. A rebuke to Israel’s chauvinist government and the settlers seizing Palestinian land – totally illegal under international law.”

Some ardent Labor supporters of Israel cried foul. Michael Forshaw, a NSW ALP senator for 17 years until 2011, wrote in April 2021: “When it was discovered that it was no longer just a resolution but would be included in the platform, many, including Michael Danby, sought to have the status quo restored. This was rejected by the relevant shadow ministers. We were told it was too late.”