Recognition of a state of Palestine must be more than a performative response to domestic political pressure.
It’s long been framed as the reward at the end of a negotiated two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians. However, given the absence of a viable Palestinian government and overt resistance from the Israeli government, any such solution has been little more than a default talking point used by western politicians for some time.
According to Pew Research, only 21% of Israeli adults think Israel and a Palestinian state can coexist peacefully – a historic low.
But what’s the alternative?
Western governments are forcing it now, because of global outrage at the appalling humanitarian situation including starvation in Gaza, with recognition of a Palestinian state being used as a carrot for the Palestinians and a stick for the Israelis to begin such a process.
What would recognition mean?
In Australia, Anthony Albanese is right to point to the need for “action not slogans” amid the push from the public and some on his own backbench, particularly the former minister Ed Husic, in the face of horrific images from Gaza.
Recognition of Palestine statehood may be a way of responding to public sentiment without imposing substantive sanctions on Israel in response to its breaches of international humanitarian law. It may well be a means to an end but it would need to be coupled with other extensive measures to create any pathway to peace, and even then it’s contingent on so many unlikely commitments from both Hamas and Israel that it may be doomed.
The pressure on Australia comes as its allies France, the UK and Canada have all indicated willingness to formally recognise a state of Palestine as soon as next month.
This is not simple, in any respect.
Hamas has set the tone, demanding “unconditional international recognition” of an independent Palestinian state.
Under a French/Saudi proposal, backed by the EU and other Arab nations, a temporary international mission would step in to stabilise the situation.
The various conditions and actions outlined by those nations flagging Palestinian recognition borrow some elements of the Arab peace initiative, which has been tossed back and forth since the early 2000s due to various sticking points including the return of Palestinian refugees.
While Benjamin Netanyahu has signalled some willingness to negotiate with Arab nations, he has previously rejected that plan.
Canada has also demanded elections in the Palestinian territories next year that exclude Hamas.
The last parliamentary election in the territories was in 2006, with the Palestinian Authority since then controlling parts of the West Bank under Mahmoud Abbas, and Hamas controlling Gaza. Even if all the other conditions were miraculously met on both sides, holding a viable democratic election within 12 months would be a mammoth practical challenge as well as a diplomatic one.
This is just one of many serious roadblocks to progress and is a space where Australia could have impact if Albanese is serious about action over slogans. He says Australia is a small player in this.
But offering development assistance and expertise in conjunction with other nations could help. Statehood, for example, would offer the opportunity for a full Australian embassy in Palestine, a potential vehicle for hand-in-hand work to help build a new leadership framework.
With or without statehood, while removing Hamas from Gaza is one critical step, democracy building to avoid a dangerous void in governance is another.
During an Australian parliamentary visit to Israel and the West Bank in August 2023 – just before the Hamas attacks – I joined a meeting with a particularly dynamic aspiring political candidate in Ramallah. She said new leaders and fresh political thinkers were often shut out of the closed-shop Palestinian Authority.
As it stands the authority has neither the mandate nor the logistical resources to lead the immense political change and rebuild required.
Equally problematic is getting the Netanyahu government to agree to any of the conditions, when its hardline rightwing members have threatened to walk even over a ceasefire, let alone a permanent pathway to peace.
For once, Albanese’s characteristic pragmatic caution seems right, recognising both the opportunity to apply pressure while also acknowledging the limits to Australia’s influence on what has so far been an intractable conflict.
• Zoe Daniel is a three-time ABC foreign correspondent and former independent member for Goldstein
