Palestine and Israel: The Challenge Remains the Same
"It is Israel that rejects any two-state solution"
I wrote the article below in November, 2023. I think the argument remains valid. But now in 2025, it appears that the Australian government may be going to double down on its hardline position in defence of Israel, even considering harsher measures to suppress criticism of Israel under the rubric of (wrongly) calling such criticisms antisemitic. I am sure all those in solidarity with the Palestinian nation will not be intimidated.
There is more to say and hopefully I can write again on this soon.
+++++++
Today [November, 2023] , as the bombing-to-death of Palestinian children and other Palestinians continues, the Australian government’s position can be understood and critiqued through the examination of two of their stated positions.
Our humanist wrath at the expansionist carnage wreaked on Gaza and the Australian government’s support for what Tel Aviv is doing, must be accompanied by a political critique that can help us breakthrough the long-standing hegemony over the people of the false story of beleaguered, democratic Israel. There are many aspects to this challenge, this short essay just deals with some of them.
Of course, the exposure on television and social media of the anti-human violence of the Israeli ruling class and army itself partly unravels the dominant story of Israel under attack, rather than the real story of Tel Aviv on the attack. However, in Australia the television coverage is little compared to what can be seen in other countries. In Indonesia, for example, there is constant and considerable footage of the Israeli bombing of Gaza. Algorithmic censorship of social media also reduces this impact.
As Tel Aviv’s own behaviour unravels their past propaganda, there is still the need for progressives and democrats in Australia to counter the political line of the ruling class, whether the Australian Labor Party (ALP) or Liberal National Party (LNP) variant.
As regards the current position of the Albanese government regarding the bombing, land attacks and siege of Gaza, it can be summed up in a now commonly expressed mantra: “Israel has the right to self-defence, but it matters how they do it”. This kind of mantra has come from both Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister, Penny Wong. Initially the mantra was simply “Israel has the right to self-defence.” After the Israeli war against Gaza became more visible, and demonstrations grew in Australia, the mantra had the extra bit added: “but it matters how they do it”.
There is, of course, a fatal flaw in this mantra. Israeli is an occupying power engaged in illegal expansion into another people’s territory. The Israel project now, and probably always was, an expansionist project.
No occupying power, using its armed forces to expand into other peoples’ countries, has the right of self-defence. The occupied people, however, have the right to resist – and the right to resist by arms, especially if peaceful resistance is suppressed.
The map of how Palestinian territory has shrunk over the decades has been seen by probably all of us who use social media to follow what is happening with the occupation. 700,000 Israeli citizens now live as settlers on newly constructed townships on Palestinian territory and the plan is for that to grow by hundreds of thousands over the coming years – to 1 million by 2050. These townships are built, maintained and defended by the Israeli state. Israel’s commitment to expansion, inimical to a genuine recognition of any Palestinian authority, is abundantly clear.
A full understanding and appreciation of this expansionist character of the Israel project has not yet pierced into popular consciousness in Australia. The Israeli state’s inhumanity is increasingly on display, but the underlying political basis needs to become clear and widespread among the people.
Of course, the second, equally fatal flaw, in this mealy-mouthed revised mantra is the inherent contradiction in pleading to a military occupation power to “defend itself” (sic) by legal and human means. The very essence of occupation and expansion is theft and oppression by violence. To plead to Israel to adhere to the rule of law or a code of humanity is a plea for it to give up its project. Only those who consciously don’t want to see this will not see it. It is not so much hypocrisy but rather a very disgusting, anti-human piece of political spin.
That it is conscious and disingenuous spin is made so clearly evident by Australia abstaining on the resolution put to the United Nations General Assembly calling for a humanitarian ceasefire. The resolution called for “an immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities”. It also called for “the immediate, continuous, sufficient and unhindered provision of essential goods and services to civilians throughout the Gaza Strip.” Seeking to maximise support, the resolution, introduced by Jordan, also appealed for the release of all hostages and the end to all attacks on civilians whether Palestinian or Israeli.
Even so, the Australian government abstained. It could not bring itself to vote for an end of the aggression or resuming the full, free flow of aid to Gaza. Of course, the United States and Israel voted against. In our immediate region, Timor Leste, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and New Zealand voted YES, while Marcos Jr’s Philippines government also abstained, and Papua New Guinea voted with the US and Israel. The Albanese government’s humanity pales behind these six nearby governments that voted YES, none of which are particularly progressive, and certainly not radical.
Underpinning this “right to defend itself” is Australia’s basic formal position on Palestine. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs website formulates it this way:
“Australia does not recognise a Palestinian state. We are committed to a two-state solution in which Israel and a future Palestinian state coexist, in peace and security, within internationally recognised borders.”
Here we see the most bizarre of anomalies – an anomaly from the point of view of democratic logic. Why is Israel recognised as a state but not Palestine? Australia, so says this statement, will recognise a “future Palestinian state”. Why is the occupying state recognised but not the state of the territory and people being occupied?
If there was ever any serious commitment to the “two state solution” then both states would have been recognised a long time ago. Australia does recognise the Palestinian Authority (PA) as the administrator over what Australia refers to as “Occupied Palestinian Territories” and there is an official delegation representing the PA in Canberra.
The Israeli State, the occupying power, is recognised. However, because Palestine is occupied, it cannot be recognised as a state. A consciously created Catch-22. Moreover, with the Australian government refusing to call on Israel to stop the bombing and siege, it is supporting the occupation and making a “future Palestinian state” more and more unlikely and a Greater Israel more likely.
It seems to me that the logic of this situation calls for a radical and immediate re-think of the question of Australian diplomatic recognition of Israeli and Palestinian statehood. A genuine position of support for a “two state” solution would mean immediate recognition of the Palestinian state alongside that of Israel. Palestine was proclaimed a state by the Palestine Liberation Organisation in 1988. The statehood of Palestine is not something needing negotiation with another state, let alone an occupying power.
However, to be meaningful of any recognition of Palestine as a state, even under a “two state solution” would require both a serious demand as well as actions to reverse the current expansionist policies of Israel. All settlers in Palestinian territories would have to withdraw behind the 1967 borders, as would all armed Israeli personnel. The cessation of all aid to Israel would be required until this happened. The blockade of Gaza would have to end. Palestine would need the right to have its own armed forces.
Recognition of statehood would mean that state assuming sovereignty over all its territory and population. Within Israel all discrimination, enforced through law or not, against people of Arabic descent would have to stop. Refugees would need the right to return.
It is Israel that rejects any two-state solution
The realisation of the concrete concomitants to recognition of a Palestinian state would amount to the defeat of the Israeli expansionist project. The Israeli ruling class has, however, made a reversal of their expansionism or an end to their discrimination against Arab people in Israel non-negotiable. When campaigning for election in 2022, Netanyahu already announced plans for annexation of the Jordan Valley that is in Palestinian territory. The commitment to expand settlements to 1 million people by 2050 is another manifestation of expansionism. In the last few days, he has announced that Israeli is aiming for complete ‘security control’ in Gaza.
Israeli has made the struggle not between a two-state solution or a one state solution, but a struggle over what kind of a single state. Will it be an authoritarian apartheid state, with Palestinians forced out of Palestine in another Nakba, or living in Israel under apartheid-style laws or in puppet Bantustans under Israeli “security control”? Or will it be a democratic, secular state with peoples of all ethnicities and religions having equal rights?
By committing to its own expansionist project, Israel has made the war a war between two opposing concepts of a state. Palestinian dignity, and indeed survival, now demands a complete defeat of this expansionist project. Such a defeat will no doubt require a continuing struggle within Palestine by the courageous popular resistance, who have the right and knowledge to devise their strategies and tactics. It will be enhanced by any increase in real support from the surrounding Arab regimes. How to achieve that is the challenge faced by the popular movements in those countries. Solidarity across the Global South may also play a role here.
A victory for the Palestinian peoples will also require growing movements in the “Western” countries demanding that their governments reverse their policies.
Whatever precisely a defeat of the Israeli expansionist projects produces in a way of an alternative state project, including what accommodation is made with Israeli non-Arabs, is a question for the Palestinian nation to decide. It is their country, and its people should have full rights to democratically decide that solution. Only defeat of the expansionist occupation will allow that.
First published at https://red-spark.org/2023/11/09/palestine-and-israel-how-to-oppose-the-position-of-the-australian-ruling-class/.