Australia must call for Palestinian statehood, say Crikey readers

Neil Churches writes: “The Australian government and parliament must recognise Palestinian statehood now, or be complicit with Netanyahu and the US in accepting the ongoing massacre of innocent Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

The continued refusal by Labor, regardless of its formal party policy, to recognise Palestine statehood immediately is a stain on our democracy. Whatever political constraints Albanese seems to believe exist, France’s unilateral recognition leaves Australia looking like an abject follower of Trump, the idiot side of American politics.

The PM’s constraints would appear to be his concern that his government might lose support of those Australian Jews who still support the tyranny of Netanyahu and the IDF — those so-called Australians should realise that Australia will do the right thing by Palestine eventually, and they do their Israeli cousins no favours by delaying action.”

Jules Morton writes: “Australia cannot call for a two-state solution if it only recognises one of the states. Israel is actively planning the annexation of the West Bank and where the settlements will be in Gaza. Any stalling on recognition is, as far as I can see, Australia trying to avoid the ‘trickiness’ of what to do when Israel ethnically cleanses a state that it officially recognises. We need to sanction all members of the Israeli government and all IDF military leaders, as well as recognise the state of Palestine.

It is all so horrifically shameful.”

Alison Brionowski writes: “The sooner the better. Macron is giving us time: his meeting with Saudi Arabia fell through and he will now announce France’s move in September — perhaps in New York at the UN. Australia should do the same, and lead other nations in the same direction.

Why are our governments always so timid? We should also spell out the obligation of Israel to recognise a Palestinian state’s right to exist, and its inclusion of the West Bank and the Golan Heights, and to stop brandishing aggressive maps of Eretz Israel in defiance of international law.”

Mark Dess writes: “We know what to expect from the LNP regarding the slaughter in Gaza. We should expect better from the ALP.

Sadly, the prime minister and Senator Wong are all talk, no action. There are many actions the Australian government could take to apply pressure to Israel to bring the suffering of Palestinians to an end — including recalling Australia’s ambassador to Israel for discussions or indefinitely until such time as a permanent ceasefire is in place; ceasing any involvement (including indirect involvement) with companies such as Elbit Systems that are engaged in weapons supply to Israel; stopping all visits by Australian parliamentarians to Israel; ceasing all cultural and sporting engagement between Australia and Israel; and formally recognising a Palestinian state.

These actions would be a good start — there are many other actions from the sanctions list Australia has imposed on Russia for its war on Ukraine that could also be taken by the Albanese government, should it wish to show a semblance of moral consistency on the international stage.”

Colin Hesse writes: “Labor’s accusations of the Greens playing politics with this issue are an effort to trivialise any response that differs from the intensely political decision of the ALP to offer nothing more than words of mild rebuke to the government of Israel.

Is it really any surprise that the Greens, formed from peace activists, environmentalists and community activism, would oppose war? This is not ‘politics’ but philosophy, a philosophy that goes beyond the aim of offending the least number of people at any one time with the object of staying in office, but to actually changing our world, in this case to a more peaceful world. Peace, as we know, is more than just words and good intentions, but to this point, all Labor has offered is words, and condemned the words of the Greens for asking for action.

History will not be kind to the Western leaders who have so categorically failed to uphold the post-war settlement for human rights and against genocide, though that will be of no consolation to those in Gaza being killed or starved by the Israeli government.”

Andrew Bonnell writes: “I wouldn’t underestimate the power of institutional inertia to preserve structures like political parties long after they have ceased to be fit for any useful purpose, but it isn’t inconceivable that the current Coalition parties will split — one half will merge with One Nation, or replace it, on the far-right populist and xenophobic fringe, while the other — probably smaller part — could try to merge with the teals to form an economically neoliberal but mildly socially-liberal, urban-based bourgeois party. There may well be a split on state lines, with the Liberal hard right taking SA, WA and Queensland.

For now, there is still money, assets and residual branding benefits in the old Liberal Party, and the hard right is probably confident they can regain and keep control of that entity. Hard-right dominance won’t make the Liberals more electable, if you look at what opinion polling tells us Australians’ views of Trump are like.”

David writes: “Most of the anti-renewable shriekers in the Coalition and News Corp aren’t stupid; they simply target the low information part of the electorate that they calculate are likely to believe such spin and outright lies. That’s what they do for a day job.

And of course, how much financial benefit (both direct and indirect) are they receiving from the fossil fuel industry? Even if the Coalition never get voted back in, that’s a handsome dividend to play with.”

Irukandji Writes: “Perhaps this is red meat for the RW fringe … [Hastie] is a peculiar beast, on the one hand supporting striking Alcoa workers, and opposing dredging in Mandurah, but opposing same-sex marriage and presenting warlike opinions on China. Removed most of the Liberal Party logos from his last election material. Apart from his evangelical beliefs, he’s no drongo.”