Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, together with Foreign Minister Penny Wong, recently announced that the Australian government will recognise a ‘State of Palestine’. This follows similar announcements by French President Emmanuel Macron, and the British and Canadian Prime Ministers Sir Keir Starmer and Mark Carney.

What good will these announcements achieve? Will it bring peace? I could answer that question in a couple of words, but I’ll resist that temptation. One of the achievements is that it has been seen as a reward for Hamas’s terrorist atrocities on 7 October 2023. PM Albanese has denied that, but the fact is that Hamas co-founder Sheikh Hassan Yousef sees it exactly that way, and along with other Hamas officials, has said so publicly. So, in the eyes of these terrorists, their murder, rape, butchery and burning of people alive is legitimised – especially if the victims are Jews.

Albanese has countered that claim by saying that Hamas must be disarmed, and that they will have no participation in any future Palestinian government. Having already demanded that Israel stops the war in Gaza – effectively surrendering to Hamas – who does he think will implement the disarmament of Hamas and ensure that they have no future in governing the Palestinian people?

Let us turn our attention to the entity that PM Albanese and many in the international community believe should govern this so-called Palestinian state – the Palestinian Authority (PA). Its President, the supposed ‘moderate’ Mahmoud Abbas, is now in the twentieth year of his first four-year term.  The reason he hasn’t held an election is that he knows very well that Hamas would unseat him, even now. Abbas is only answerable to the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), of which he is the Chairman. The two organisations are effectively one and the same.

A major obstacle to peace is the PLO National Charter. It is well known that the Hamas Charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of all Jews. What is generally ignored is that the PLO Charter of 1968 ‘aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine’ (Article 15) and that ‘Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine’ (Article 9). Armed struggle equals terrorism. The widely heard chant, ‘From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free’ is straight out of the PLO Charter.

The PA today continues to behave as if the PLO Charter is still in operation, which it is. Recently Albanese had a phone call with Mahmoud Abbas in which he said he was assured by the PA President that the PA would reform, end ‘pay-for-slay’ and incitement to hatred, and also recognise Israel’s right to exist. The PA has a long track record of saying what they want Western ears to hear in English, and something entirely different in Arabic to Arab/Muslim ears. The PA has broken every single commitment it made in the ‘Oslo Accords’, and it would seem that our Prime Minister has fallen for Abbas’s lies hook, line and sinker.

In recent statements on various policy issues, whether it is ‘net zero’, defence spending, or even the decision to recognise a Palestinian state, the Prime Minister has reminded the public that (allegedly) he is acting in ‘Australia’s interests as a sovereign nation’ regardless of what other nations – e.g. the USA – might think. The question I would like to ask the Prime Minister is this:  does the government of Israel have the same right? Since the atrocities of 7 October, the Israeli government has declared that agreeing to a Palestinian state is a non-starter. The 120-seat parliament of Israel – the Knesset – has voted 99 to 9 against the formation of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River.  Clearly this had widespread support from opposition parties, as well as the government itself. So, as far as the sovereign State of Israel is concerned, the ‘two-state solution’ is dead. Who do Albanese and Wong think they are to try to override that?

The push by Australia, Britain, France and Canada to recognise a Palestinian state in the so-called ‘West Bank’ has no basis in international law.

However, what international law does encourage is that minority groups such as the Kurds, and even the Palestinians, should at least have the right of self-determination.  The Palestinians were given the right of self-determination through the Oslo Accords, and had they concluded negotiations with Israel in good faith, that would have led to statehood for them. But the Palestinian leadership squandered that opportunity. The Arabs living west of the Jordan River had been offered statehood alongside Israel in 1947 by UN General Assembly Resolution 181, but they rejected it. After ‘Oslo’ Yasser Arafat was offered statehood at Camp David in 2000. He walked out, went home and started a war – the second intifada. In 2008 Mahmoud Abbas was offered statehood by then prime minister Ehud Olmert. Again, the offer was rejected. The stumbling block in every case has been the refusal by the Palestinians to recognise the right of the Jewish people to statehood in any boundary, and to end the conflict.

Another very deep flaw in the recognition of Palestinian statehood is that ‘Palestine’ does not qualify as a state according to the 1933 Montevideo Convention, which is an international treaty, and therefore an instrument of international law.

Natasha Hausdorff, who is Legal Director of UK Lawyers for Israel Charitable Trust, recently held a webinar with Professor Douglas Feith who has a distinguished career as a legal academic, and served as under secretary for defense in the Bush administration, where he helped to devise a strategy for the war on terrorism. He had this to say about the recognition of Palestinian statehood by France, Britain, Canada and Australia: ‘The Palestinians do not have a state under the definitions of international law. For these governments to say they are going to recognise something that doesn’t exist is showing contempt for the international legal concept of what a state is. Recognising something that doesn’t exist is saying that international law is nonsense. They are effectively saying “in the name of ‘international law’ we’re going to ignore international law”.’

So not only is the Albanese/Wong announcement throwing both the State of Israel and the Australian Jewish community ‘under the bus’, but arguably it is unlawful and will likely contribute to further bloodshed in the Middle East, as well further Jew-hatred at home.