Recognising Palestine is both a strategic and moral act

“How are you... all things considered?” is how nearly every conversation starts these days—with Jewish friends and with Palestinian friends.  

For nine months in 2023, “all things considered” referred to the internal collapse of Israeli democracy under its far-right government. Then came October 7, and our worlds were shattered. Hamas’s horrifying attacks killed over 1,200 Israelis and took hundreds of hostages in a single day. The trauma was profound, personal, collective. 

Since then, “all things considered” has come to encompass the continued captivity of Israeli hostages, but also the death of more than 60,000 Gazans, the forced displacement of nearly the entire population, and the fact that half a million children no longer have homes or schools. Starvation is now widespread. It is a manmade catastrophe of unthinkable scale. 

Into this pain comes a political question: Should countries like Australia join the more than 140 UN member states that formally recognise the State of Palestine, as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese today promised Australia will do at the next United Nations General Assembly meeting in September? 

Recognition won’t stop the war in Gaza tomorrow. But it may help end the moral paralysis that has allowed mass suffering to become normalised. And it may finally open a political horizon that’s been shut for too long. 

Recognising Palestine does not reward terrorism or undermine Israel’s right to exist. It is a strategic and moral act that acknowledges the national aspirations of the Palestinian people, while affirming the same right for Jews to live securely in a democratic homeland. 

To oppose recognition on the grounds that “the time isn’t right” is to ignore that the right time has never come. Delay has only entrenched despair. When Israel declared independence in 1948, its borders weren’t finalised. Its internal politics were in flux. And yet the world recognised its right to statehood. Palestinians deserve the same. 

Let’s be clear: Hamas has never supported two states. It was founded in opposition to the 1988 PLO declaration that recognised Israel and called for a Palestinian state alongside it. Recognition of Palestine is not a reward for Hamas. It’s a rejection of them. It says: we believe in diplomacy, not terror. We believe that millions of Palestinians who yearn for a peaceful, dignified future have the right to pursue it. 

In the wake of the destruction of Gaza, and the suffering of its people, which have followed from Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel, the world is waking up to the need for a political solution that upholds the humanity of both peoples. 

Two major diplomatic moments this year have made that possible. 

On June 10, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas issued a six-point statement that should have been front-page news. He condemned the October 7 attacks, called for the release of hostages, pledged to disarm Hamas, end the prisoner payment system, reform school curricula, hold democratic elections within a year, and—most significantly—accepted a demilitarised Palestinian state. 

Then, on July 25, the Saudi-French initiative brought together the 22 Arab League members, all 27 EU states, and 17 other nations. Together, they condemned Hamas’s actions and called for it to relinquish control of Gaza to a reformed Palestinian Authority. It was the first time such unified Arab condemnation had ever been voiced. 

That’s everything Israel and its allies have long demanded. And yet, Israel’s government dismissed both initiatives outright. Prime Minister Netanyahu and his ministers reject the two-state solution. They talk openly of annexation and permanent occupation. 

To them, Palestinian recognition is a threat. But to the rest of us—those who believe in a secure Israel and a free Palestine—it’s a path forward. A diplomatic circuit breaker. Not a final step, but a necessary one. 

In this context, and with Israel again escalating the war that threatens the deaths of more innocent Gazans and the remaining hostages, we are right to support the Australian government’s move of recognition with pre-conditions to support a two-state solution. This would align with allies like Canada, the UK, and France who have used elements of the PA and Saudi-French initiatives to reframe what peace could look like. It would be a principled move by Australia. Not just strategic—but deeply moral. 

Palestinian recognition can strengthen moderates, undercut extremist narratives, and give the Palestinian Authority the legitimacy—and pressure—it needs to govern responsibly. It can also send a message to Israel: that endless settlement expansion and occupation are not sustainable, nor acceptable. 

Jewish voices are demanding change. 4,000 prominent Jewish philanthropists and former government ministers from 18 different countries have called for the end of the war and for Israel not to resettle Gaza. Over 1,100 rabbis have signed statements condemning the war’s civilian toll. Hundreds of former Israeli security chiefs have called on Trump for a ceasefire and hostage deal. Thousands of Israelis protest daily—holding images of starving Gazan children with signs that say “Not in our name.” 

These are not fringe voices. They are voices of grief, responsibility, and courage. 

Palestinian recognition can undercuts extremist narratives that claim only violence can bring results. It gives diplomatic tools to moderates and fosters a climate where compromise becomes possible. 

Israel’s Declaration of Independence promised “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants” and extended a hand of peace to its neighbours. Recognition of Palestine is a fulfillment—not a betrayal—of that founding vision.