ECAJ Executive Director Peter Wertheim was quoted in the Aus­trali­an Jewish News this week regarding a recent motion about Israel that was debated at Western Australia Labor Con­fer­ence. Elab­or­at­ing on his views, Peter has written about the recent trend of Israel res­ol­u­tions at Labor State con­fer­ences.

The ALP and Israel: A Guide for the Perplexed

Peter Wertheim AM
September, 2017
During July and August 2017, res­ol­u­tions were passed at ALP State con­fer­ences in NSW, Queens­land, Tasmania, the ACT and Western Australia, urging the next Labor gov­ern­ment to recognise a Palestini­an State.
These res­ol­u­tions did not have the same qual­i­fic­a­tions or con­di­tions that were contained in the 2015 ALP National con­fer­ence res­ol­u­tion, which called on a future ALP gov­ern­ment, in the event that there continues to be no movement in the peace process, to “discuss” joining like-minded nations who have already recog­nised Palestine and announce “the con­di­tions and timelines” for Aus­trali­an to recognise a Palestini­an state.
The main debate was at the NSW ALP Con­fer­ence on 30 July 2017. The NSW Branch is the ALP’s largest and most influ­en­tial State branch. The offi­cially pre-endorsed motion for the NSW con­fer­ence “noted” the 2015 national con­fer­ence res­ol­u­tion, and said that the NSW branch “urges the next Labor gov­ern­ment to recognise Palestine”.
It ought to be noted that the key issue is not about recog­ni­tion of a Palestini­an state per se, but whether a Palestini­an state can or should be estab­lished and recog­nised other than as an outcome of a com­pre­hens­ive peace agreement between Israel and the Palestini­ans. In the Road Map of 2003, both Israel and the Palestini­ans agreed that a Palestini­an state will emerge from a peace agreement.
As a result of a concerted effort by those in the Labor party who have a realistic under­stand­ing of the necessary elements of a peace agreement, a new paragraph was inserted into the offi­cially pre-endorsed NSW ALP Branch motion imme­di­ately prior to the paragraph urging recog­ni­tion. The new paragraph noted that Labor “supports the recog­ni­tion and right of Israel and Palestine to exist within secure and recog­nised borders”.
The expres­sion ‘secure and recog­nised borders’ neces­sar­ily implies an Israeli-Palestini­an peace agreement as a sine qua non of Palestini­an statehood and recog­ni­tion. Without such an agreement, the borders would neces­sar­ily remain disputed, not ‘secure and recog­nised’.
It was for this very reason that Israel’s opponents strenu­ously resisted the addition of that extra paragraph into the motion. They failed. So the insertion of this extra paragraph into the NSW Branch motion, which sub­sequently became the res­ol­u­tion passed by the WA Branch as well, was a crucial victory for Israel’s sup­port­ers.
Bob Carr, who has led the charge against Israel at ALP con­fer­ences over the last few years, sub­sequently tried to spin the NSW Branch res­ol­u­tion as an endorse­ment of “immediate and uncon­di­tion­al recog­ni­tion” of a Palestini­an state. Other opponents of Israel have tried to give it the same spin, pre­tend­ing that the addi­tion­al paragraph that they resisted so vehe­mently, just isn’t there.
In truth, the words “immediate and uncon­di­tion­al” do not appear in the res­ol­u­tion and, for the reasons I have given, there can be no denying the sig­ni­fic­ance of the insertion into the res­ol­u­tion of the expres­sion “secure and recog­nised borders”’.
Further, Labor leaders Bill Shorten, Penny Wong, Chris Bowen and Tanya Plibersek all confirmed on the record that a future Labor gov­ern­ment will not be bound by any ALP State Branch res­ol­u­tion and, once in gov­ern­ment, will act inde­pend­ently in the light of legal and other expert advice.
Nev­er­the­less, the general drift in sentiment away from Israel within the ALP is an ongoing concern. This drift opens the door to a grave weakening of Aus­trali­a’s tra­di­tion­al bipar­tis­an consensus in favour of, and the ALP’s com­mit­ment to, a just and peaceful res­ol­u­tion of the conflict. The acid test will come at the next ALP national con­fer­ence in July 2018.
The rationale put forward by those seeking a change in the ALP’s policy on Israel is that Israel is pre­dom­in­antly to blame for the stalling of the peace process because of continued set­tle­ment con­struc­tion. Even if this were a fair and accurate assess­ment (which it is not), it is not clear how this would justify recog­nising as a State, an entity which even the Palestini­ans’ own lawyer, Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, has said does not meet the minimal legal criteria of statehood. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
There can be no jus­ti­fic­a­tion for placing the pre­pon­der­ance of blame for the absence of a peace agreement on Israel. Since 2000, Israel has made at least three peace offers to the Palestini­ans which included the estab­lish­ment of a Palestini­an State over territory equi­val­ent in area to 100% of the West Bank and Gaza. Israel has repeatedly called on the Palestini­ans to return to nego­ti­ations without pre­con­di­tions. The Palestini­ans have refused.
Recog­ni­tion of a state is supposed to be an acknow­ledge­ment of an existing reality, not an act of wishful thinking. To my knowledge, no inter­na­tion­al lawyer of any eminence has asserted that a Palestini­an entity currently exists which satisfies the generally accepted criteria for statehood under inter­na­tion­al law. Quite the contrary. There is no pro­vi­sion­al Palestini­an gov­ern­ment that controls, or is likely any time soon to control, both the West Bank and Gaza, and thus there is no Palestini­an state to recognise.
Further, by requiring nothing of the Palestini­ans in return for recog­ni­tion, those who advocate immediate and uncon­di­tion­al recog­ni­tion of “Palestine”, are in effect seeking to pressure only one side, Israel, to make uni­lat­er­al con­ces­sions, without requiring the Palestini­ans to accept recip­roc­al oblig­a­tions as a condition of statehood. This can only serve to dis­cour­age the Israelis and incentiv­ise the Palestini­ans, against making the hard com­prom­ises that will be essential for a just and lasting peace.

Photo Credit: Financial Review