Motions

Palestine

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (11:01): By leave, I move my motion in an amended form:

That this house—

(a) notes that Australian government is committed to a two-state solution to this Israel-Palestine conflict and that unless measures are taken this option will vanish;

(b) affirms that the continuation of settlement building is in violation of the fourth Geneva Convention, and various resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, the most recent being resolution 2334 (2016), and constitutes a major obstacle to peace;

(c) believes that support for a two-state solution and for self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians requires taking active measures by the international community; and

(d) calls on the commonwealth government to recognise the state of Palestine (as we have recognised the state of Israel) and announce the conditions and time lines to achieve such recognition.

In speaking in support of this motion, the first question to be asked is: why move the motion now? The reason I have moved this motion this year is that this year marks some significant milestones in the history of Palestine. It is 100 years since the Balfour Declaration, 70 years since the UN Partition Plan, 50 years since the occupation of the state of Palestine (the West Bank), including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, 30 years since the beginning of the first intifada and 10 years since the signing of the beginning political divisions amongst Palestinian people.

Moving this motion in amended form does not diminish, in my view, our responsibility to acknowledge that Palestinians have suffered denial of their right to self-determination for a century, have been the victims of dispossession for 70 years and have suffered under what could effectively be described as a military occupation for 50 years. In my opinion, we must also accept that there is a growing awareness internationally that the greatest hope for change to the conflict is an end to the occupation of the Palestinian territories.

In moving this motion, there is no intention whatsoever to deny that the Jewish people have experienced and continue to experience victimisation, discrimination and injustice in some parts of the world. This reality, however, in my view, does not justify the international community turning a blind eye or indeed looking the other way at the victimisation, discrimination and injustices experienced by the Palestinian people in Israel, the occupied territories and refugee camps across the Middle East. One injustice cannot justify another injustice.

In a keynote speech on 18 January 2016, Martin Luther King Jr Day, in Washington DC last year our Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, when talking about the American-Australian relationship, said:

Values which we share: freedom, enterprise and a deep belief that everyone should have the best chance to realise their dreams.

Like you, we do not define our national identity by race, religion or cultural heritage, but on shared political values at the heart of which is freedom and mutual respect.

At the core of our success, and of others’ failure, is the recognition that in a true democracy the rule of law constrains the majority at the same time as it empowers it.

Later in that speech, in relation to the territorial dispute in the South China Sea between China and the Philippines, the Prime Minister went on to say:

Australia has no claims in the South China Sea, nor do we make any judgement on the legitimacy of any of the competing claims. We urge all parties, not just China, to refrain from further construction on those islands or reefs, and to refrain from militarisation.

We do so because unilateral actions are in nobody’s interest. They are a threat to the peace and good order of the region on which the economic growth and national security of all our neighbours depend.

These differences should be resolved by international law. That is why Australia attended, as observers, the merits hearing in The Hague last November, in the case brought by the Philippines under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

In July last year, the International Court of Arbitration handed down its decision regarding this dispute. In response to that ruling, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull urged claimants to the South China Sea to respect the landmark Hague ruling that China has no legal basis to claim historical rights over the region. The International Court in The Hague ruled that China has no legal claim to historic rights in the South China Sea, where it has been building artificial islands in the resource-rich region, which acts as a main artery for about $4.5 trillion worth of shipping trade a year. The Prime Minister said:

There is so much at risk in the event of conflict, in the event of heightened tensions, so this is an important decision, it is one that has been made in accordance with international law and it should be respected by both parties and indeed by all parties and all claimants.

Australian foreign minister, Julie Bishop, said that she would be discussing the matter at the East Asia Summit and the ASEAN Regional Forum in late July. She said:

In the meantime we urge all parties to de-escalate tensions, not take any action that would provoke or increase tensions.

She said earlier that ignoring the ruling would be a serious international transgression, bringing strong reputational costs. I raise this issue and the Prime Minister's speech because together they convey a common theme: the importance of the rule of law and the importance of international law. When these principles are applied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they require us to recognise the people of Palestine and their state. This is not a radical position, which I will explain shortly.

Why should we recognise the state of Palestine? Everybody appears to agree that a two-state solution is the key to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For a two-state solution you need two states; namely, the state of Israel, which we recognise, and the state of Palestine, which we should recognise. It is as simple as that. The peace process has failed to deliver any tangible results. Direct negotiations between Palestine and Israel, based on the Oslo Accords, have ultimately failed and settlements continue to grow in the occupied territories. Again, I refer to the Prime Minister's comments when he refers to the rule of international law. If we are going to take part in international law, then we should do so consistently in our foreign policy.

Continued settlement expansion is bringing about the demise of the two-state solution and imposing a one-state reality, which has its own difficulties and complexities and is unlikely to be accepted by the parties involved. In the same way that the Australian High Court put an end to the legal fiction in the Mabo decision that Australia was terra nullius when settled by the British, we cannot deny that the Palestinian people exist and that the land they occupy is the state of Palestine.

In the current absence of a viable peace process and in order to save the two-state solution, the international community has an obligation to recognise the state of Palestine. The United Nations General Assembly and 138 other countries, including Sweden and the Vatican, have already done so; they have recognised the state of Palestine. Additionally, 12 European parliaments have asked their governments to recognise the state of Palestine. We are not breaking new ground here but we will hopefully be on the side of history.

I would like to quote some former prime ministers and former foreign ministers who have spoken on this matter: Gareth Evans and Bob Carr, former foreign ministers of Australia, and Bob Hawke, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, former prime ministers of Australia. They are all on the record saying the time has come for us to recognise the state of Palestine. I quote:

Gareth Evans, foreign minister in the Labor Hawke and Keating governments, helped Mr Carr launch his much talked about Diary of a Foreign Minister…

This is what Gareth Evans said at the launch of that book:

It was about ensuring that Australia was not seen internationally as being on the wrong side of history.

'The wrong side of history' meaning the position where Bob Carr enabled the Australian government at the time to take a neutral position on a UN vote regarding Israel and Palestine. Bob Carr, who was seen as very pro-Israel, said the following:

None of this was around in 1977 when I rented a room in Sydney Trades Hall and called on Bob Hawke, ACTU president, to help me launch Labor Friends of Israel.

In 1977 the Israeli occupation was 10 years old. There were 25,000 settlers. It was easy to believe the Israelis were holding the West Bank only as a bargaining chip. Arabs were terrorists.

Now the occupation has lasted 47 years. There are 500,000 settlers. Up to 60 per cent of the Israeli cabinet is on record as opposing a two-state solution. Palestinians have been part of a peace process for 25 years.

In an article in the Australian Financial Review Bob Hawke is quoted:

I am well known as a long-time supporter of the right of Israel to exist as a state behind secure and recognised borders—nothing has changed in that respect. What has changed is the sentiment of Israeli political leadership.

This motion is not a criticism of Israel, but it is certainly a criticism of the current government of Israel, and we should not try to say that they are one and the same. Governments come and go. The current government has made it very clear that it is not committed to the peace process. Bob Hawke goes on to say in this article:

In total contempt of the UN Security Council Resolution passed on December 23, 2016—

only last year—

the Israeli Government announced on January 24, 2017 its intention to build another 2500 settlements across the West Bank and approved 20 permits for 566 settlements in East Jerusalem.

A little earlier I mentioned that, when it comes to the South China Sea dispute, our Prime Minister and our deputy foreign minister have said that neither party should do things to provoke others and to impede peace. The settlement program is an impediment to peace, and that is why we need to make a declaration and acknowledge the state of Palestine. It is important to say that.

Kevin Rudd, a former prime minister and not a person I actually share a lot of views with but, putting that aside, said:

…the time has come for Australia to join countries like Sweden and the Holy See in formally recognising the Palestinian State.

Mr Rudd said he was concerned about the building of settlements in occupied Palestinian territory on the West Bank saying it 'fundamentally undermines the prospect of a two-state solution'. If we accept a two-state solution, we have to accept there are two states and those states are the state of Israel and the state of Palestine. He went on to say:

It is now critical for Israel's closest friends—

like Australia and America—

to send a clarion clear message to both Tel Aviv and Washington that the abandonment of a two-state solution is unacceptable.

More recently, former prime minister Julia Gillard, while in Israel receiving her honorary doctorate, had cause to express her concern about the ongoing settlements in occupied territories. Her view was that those settlements actually hurt the friends of Israel because they make it harder for people to support Israel's actions.

In the few seconds I have left, I would make this observation. If we ignore international law, we actually put the world in peril. If we ignore international law, we make the world a less safe place. International law, particularly in the Western world, is what upholds our democracies around the world, so we need to apply international law, and it is quite clear what international law on this issue is. It has been adjudicated a number of times in the UN and in a number of other tribunals.

If we turn a blind eye to the plight of the Palestinian people in their suffering, we diminish ourselves as well. In a country that values fair play and justice, in denying the Palestinian people their state, we deny that they exist. I would ask you to support the motion.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (11:16): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Ayes 14

Noes 18

Majority 4

Ms COOK (Fisher) (11:21): I rise today to talk about some of the most oppressed stateless people on earth: the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people are still living under apartheid conditions imposed on them by their Israeli government. This is not my commentary but that of the late South African freedom fighter Nelson Mandela, who said:

We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.

The Palestinians have had their lands stolen and illegally settled upon by Israeli settlers and their access to work strictly regulated, making it near impossible for many Palestinians to eke out a living. Palestinians are subject to brutal military occupation, which sees a foreign military patrolling their streets. Palestinians have withstood the worst of chemical agents being used against them, namely, white phosphorus, which can stick to the skin and cause intense burning. It is a chemical that the Israel Defense Forces deployed against densely populated areas of Gaza, including schools.

Last year, we saw important steps being made at the United Nations Security Council, which unequivocally laid out what constitutes Palestine's territory, consisting of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, and that Palestine's territory was inviolate to foreign governments, including the Israeli government. This is a sign that the situation is moving forward. There is now a basis upon which two countries can begin to negotiate new boundaries and what a two-sovereign-state solution may begin to look like.

Despite the moves by the United Nations Security Council, it has been disappointing to see that the Netanyahu government has decided to unilaterally ignore the determinations of the council, so that good faith negotiations can start on bringing about a fair settlement for both nations. If Prime Minister Netanyahu fails to comply with what has now become international law, through the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, and fails to start the process of dismantling Israeli settlements and working towards a functional and independent Palestinian state, history will not view him as one of the world's greatest statesman but as one of the worst war criminals of modern political history and a roadblock to sustainable peace in the region.

A two-state solution remains the position of Australia's federal government, with 136 nations around the world in near universal support having recognised the state of Palestine. It is unfortunate that Australia does not number within those countries that have recognised the state of Palestine, instead holding the untenable position of recognising one state and not recognising the other. Without significant uptake in the recognition of the state of Palestine, it is my fear that this option may soon vanish.

Within this motion, we are calling on the federal government to change this position and to come to the sensible solution that if our intention is to see the state of Palestine, being the legitimate government of a sovereign Palestinian nation, we should be making the requisite moves as a country to recognise that authority.

The shared stories of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples have been sad ones, with a history of genocide, refusal of being taken as refugees and a denial of culture and custom. After the horrors of World War II, which saw the most horrific crimes committed against the Jewish people, a solution had to be sought to ensure that this never happened again. Unfortunately, this solution cast another people who were thousands of miles away and played no part in that unfolding European tragedy into statelessness and near permanent occupation.

Given what we know now, was the creation of this state the best way to deal with this crisis? With the benefit of hindsight, most likely not. However, it is the situation we find ourselves in today. I hope that the two nations can rise above their history to find peace in their region and join the nations that have been able to move beyond their terrible histories to bring about a common peace like South Africa, Northern Ireland, Lebanon and Bosnia before them. I call on the commonwealth government to do all it can to support the peace effort in the region, which should start with the recognition of the state of Palestine, with clear conditions and time lines towards such recognition. In the name of peace in our time, I commend this motion to the house.