In all the intractable and complicated aspects of the conflict between Israel and Palestine, the status of Jerusalem is one of the more straightforward: Israel’s claim to West Jerusalem has never been recognised, because the United Nations Partition Plan in 1947 identified Jerusalem as having a separate body status. That still holds under international law.
For that matter, Israel’s control of East Jerusalem can never be recognised under international law either, because it’s an occupying power there — in exactly the same way that Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory are illegal under international law.
The rage emanating from Israel and the Israel lobby in Australia over the Albanese government’s decision to return to the international status quo and withdraw recognition of West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is thus fury that Australia has chosen to observe international law, rather than pander to an apartheid state dedicated to suppressing and immiserating Palestinians.
Scott Morrison’s recognition of West Jerusalem had two motivations: the first was to try to save the seat of Wentworth for Dave Sharma in the 2018 byelection, which it failed to do, though Sharma briefly occupied the seat from 2019-22 before being rightly sent packing by his voters.
The other was to curry favour with Donald Trump, which was even by US standards an absurdly anti-Palestinian administration.
Sharma, Australia’s ambassador to the corrupt Netanyahu government before his disastrous tilt at politics, has emerged from obscurity today to attack the government’s decision, along with a slew of commentators at The Australian. Say what you like about Chris Mitchell, but at least he was prepared to stand up to the Israel lobby and encouraged fair reporting by John Lyons of Israel’s murderous occupation of Palestine when he ran the Oz.
One can understand the rage, to an extent, because Israel and its apologists here have grown used to almost unthinking obeisance from most Australian politicians and much of the media.
The Coalition readily turned a blind eye to the implementation of apartheid, the constant extension of illegal settlements and the routine murder of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers. Much of the Labor Party has been indistinguishable from its opponents; efforts by Bob Carr during his brief stint as foreign affairs minister to have a marginally less anti-Palestinian policy were met with relentless opposition by Julia Gillard.
Politicians on all sides happily cultivate close relations with Israeli diplomats. It’s an open secret within Labor, for example, that then Israeli ambassador Yuval Rotem was actually present on the night when a right-wing powerbroker was helping to organise the removal of Kevin Rudd from the prime ministership. Rudd, famously, had made the mistake of complaining to Israel about Mossad forging Australian passports to use on its murder operations abroad.
There’s no doubt DFAT badly bungled its handling of the decision: a cabinet decision, particularly of such sensitivity, is for ministers to announce, not for departmental web content managers. Presumably intended to “go live” when Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong announced the change, some fool went ahead and updated the site without checking, or even being faintly aware of the high-profile nature of what they were doing; if you think it’s fine to casually change the status of Jerusalem on DFAT’s website, it’s probably a good hint that you shouldn’t be working at DFAT.
Nonetheless, Israel’s fury isn’t that of the aggrieved but of the privileged, enraged that a government assumed to be compliant had displayed an annoying adherence to international law. Those of us who were around in the 1980s will recall the same tone adopted by diplomats from apartheid South Africa, toward which Australia — unlike Israel — developed a commendable record of criticism under both sides of politics, despite the efforts of right-wing extremists within the Liberal Party. But Israel has many more friends around Canberra.
I’ve never understood how so many Israelis and their supporters can’t see the shocking similarity between how Palestinians are treated and how Jews were shockingly treated in pre WW2 Europe. They may have created a ‘safe haven’ for Jewish people, but the price the Palestinians pay is abhorrent. Why can’t Israel just allow peaceful coexistence? Instead they steal land, shoot, suppress and torment s similarly proud people. Both deserve a fair go. The fact you can’t critisize a country without the eggregiously clumsy ‘anti semetic’ dog whistling is further proof that they wish for no accountability for the actions of their leaders. A tragedy on every level. And don’t even get me started on Yemen. Politics truly does suck. And most people are willing suckers.
Yes, the Zionists learned the other possible lesson from WWII instead – it is better to be the oppressor than to be the oppressed.
The reason they keep this going is because they want the real estate on which to build houses where families can raise children, go to school, and grow up to be respectable citizens.
Its the same thing that happened in Australia and USA.
It’s happened all over the world, at all times. But a civilised nation seeks to right past wrongs.
I’ve never seen a civilised nation give back more than a fraction of what was stolen, or attempt to pay in hard currency what the stolen land was worth.
I’ve watched a lot of cowboy movies and visited the war memorial in Canberra. Are those indicators of civilised nations?
Let me see one has lived there for over two thousand years, the other gets a mention in a fictional book
Agree 100% Bernard. Atrocities might be both ways, but the Morrison decision was ideological” and toadying.
It’s also linked to his Pentecostalism. I’m not across the detail, but it’s something to do with preparing the way for the Second Coming.
The Rapture.
I agree with Bernard and the comments below, particularly the reference to critics of Israeli policies being called anti-Semitic. The power of the Jewish lobby in Australia is out of all proportion to the numbers of Jewish voters. We need to be much stronger in support of Palestinians and continue to call out Israel’s illegal occupations. Israel does itself and the Jewish people no favours.
The reach of their voices is proportional to their wallets.
The long running “two states” fantasy plan was killed stone dead, cremated and buried by the Netanyahu government declaring that Israel was a Jewish state rather than a state for Jews, as plain a definition of racism as anything Verwoerd ever claimed.
This country could surprise Sir Humphrey and be ‘very courageous’ by not equating criticism of Israeli policies with antisemitism.
Well said.
Agreed. “Two states” is used by the “Israel all the way” brigade as another way of silencing critics. The possibility of a coexisting Palestinian nation has been dead for decades. Still, they keep using it as a convenient fiction – like those stories of people keeping their mummified ex-parent upstairs while collecting the social security payments.
Bulldozers demolish villages to make way for Jewish settlers, Palestinians are murdered in full view of the camera with nobody held responsible, but somehow pointing out that Jerusalem isn’t the capital of Israel is what destroys “the peace”.
And the logical corollary is the one secular state of Palestine, where Jews, Christians and Muslims are all treated equally. This is what people mean by ‘Death to Israel’ – death to an apartheid state that has no right to exist in the same way that apartheid South Africa had no right to exist. It is quite different from ‘Death to Jews’, of ‘Death to Israelis’.
or ‘Death to Israelis’.
This piece encapsulates what I like about Bernard Keane’s reporting and what makes subscribing to Crikey worthwhile. Bernard’s been around awhile, has walked the corridors of bureaucracy and knows the nuances and outright hypocrisies of Aussie politics. It shows and I thank him for it. These days, the MSM are as shallow as a puddle. ABC reporters in particular seem to be all aged between 22 and 26, are mostly female and are clearly unable to call on any historical context within their reporting. To be fair, the fault is not with them (for the most part), it is with their producers and managers who have allowed this to happen.
Can you explain the significance of the reporters being “mostly female”?
Just guessing but possibly the same as their age & lack of experience – self referencing, cossetted ingénues unfamiliar with the real world.
Hello Gat, I have absolutely no issue at all with female reporters, if that’s your inference. I’m just intrigued if it is ABC policy to favor the employment of young female journalists over male? Because judging by just about every ABC radio and TV news bulletin of late it seems to suggest this is so. Why is this? In the past the ABC has always had a history of top class female (and male) reporters so I wouldn’t have thought a reconfiguration was required.
Have you got figures showing it’s more than 50/50?
The evidence is on screen.
Have you watched commercial TV news in the last 5 years?
The criterion isn’t just femaleness – the evidence shows a clear recruitment bias for good looking females.
I’m not saying the people they recruit aren’t qualified journalists. I’m just reporting that unattractive people are clearly being discriminated against.
Form rather than substance.
So true to all your comments. Same reason I continually subscribe.
Re comments on ABC reporters, I sometimes find their naivety breathtaking.
No reference to a particular sex, just their naivety.