EDITORIAL: Former PM cuts to the truth of the Palestine debate

Hamas’ murderous attack on Israel and the resulting war in Gaza has given rise to a maelstrom of public debate.

That debate has too often been marked by an excess of emotion and too little consideration of the facts.

And so it is welcome indeed that a considered, clear-thinking voice has emerged.

Former Liberal prime minister John Howard and former foreign minister Alexander Downer issued a joint statement today saying that Labor’s “premature recognition of Palestine” had breached international law, and accused the Government of putting “short-term domestic political advantage” ahead of international law.

The Liberal heavyweights were responding to the decision of the Albanese Government to join a handful of other countries — the UK, France, and Canada among them — to recognise a Palestinian state at the upcoming United Nations meeting this month.

They said the move “undermined a relationship of enduring trust between Australia and Israel”, and failed to show the leadership and strength of former Labor leaders Bob Hawke and H. V. Evatt, who was the president of the UN General Assembly between 1948 to 1949.

“As longstanding friends and supporters of Israel who worked in government to advance a genuine two-state solution, we are appalled by the Albanese Government’s recent behaviour,” they said.

“The question of recognising Palestine as a sovereign state is not a matter of empty symbolism.

“It strikes at the heart of whether international law is to be respected or discarded whenever political expediency is deemed more convenient.”

While they expressed concern at the death and suffering of the Gaza conflict, they said it was the “cruel unjustified and aggressive action of Hamas on the 7th October 2023, which is responsible for the state of affairs now distressing so many”.

Mr Howard and Mr Downer said statehood should not be a “prize handed out to reward sympathy or to satisfy political sentiment,” quoting the Montevideo Convention that statehood needs to meet the criteria of: “A defined territory, a permanent population, an effective government, and the capacity to engage in relations with other states”.

They argued that Palestine did not “meet these standards,” which meant recognition was “not a legal act but a political gesture”.

“To recognise Palestine prematurely is not just poor diplomacy. It is a betrayal of the legal order that underpins the very idea of a rules-based international system,” they said.

“Those who value international law, and who understand the hard lessons of conflict resolution, should resist such a reckless and dangerous course.”

The existing rules-based international system is already under attack in Ukraine and threatened by China’s push to reshape the world to its will. Just this week China showed off the firepower to back up its aim

We should not play into the hands of those who seek to dismantle the system.

Responsibility for the editorial comment is taken by Editor-in-Chief Christopher Dore.