Yahoo News Australia’s support for UN resolution on Palestinian membership ‘not recognition of statehood’
Australia’s support of a UN vote on Palestinian membership is “the opposite of what Hamas wants”, and is not about recognising Palestine as a state, according to the foreign affairs minister, Penny Wong.
The draft resolution was significantly watered down in last-minute negotiations and Australia was among 143 UN general assembly members to pass the resolution calling on the security council to reconsider granting full membership to Palestine.
On Saturday, Wong said the vote was about awarding “modest additional rights to participate in United Nations forums”, and that Australia would only recognise Palestine “when we think the time is right”.
She said Australia’s policy had changed to be open to recognition during a peace process, “not necessarily only at the end of the peace process”.
That small but significant shift in policy was revealed in April, and some interpreted it as a signal Australia could recognise Palestine in the near future, although Wong said there is no move to do that. Wong also emphasised there would be no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state.
The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, said the backing of the resolution was consistent with Australia’s support for a two-state solution.
He said the government continued to “unequivocally condemn” Hamas’s actions on 7 October and call for the release of the hostages. But he said Palestinians have a right to live in peace and security side-by-side with Israel.
In a statement explaining the vote, the Australian government said the resolution’s language expressed “unwavering support for the two-state solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognised borders”.
“Like many other countries, our vote for this resolution is not bilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood,” it said.
“Nevertheless, Australia no longer accepts that recognition can only come at the end of the peace process.
“We have been clear there is no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state.”
France, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand were among the countries that voted for the resolution at an emergency session of the general assembly in New York on Friday.
The US and Israel were among nine countries to oppose the resolution, while 25 others abstained.
Australia was leaning towards abstaining on the original resolution, in which the UN general assembly would have requested the 15-member security council to “favourably” reconsider Palestine’s application for full UN membership status.
Last month the US used its veto power to scuttle the proposal at a security council meeting, and full membership is impossible without that body’s consent.
In addition to the symbolic move of requesting a rethink by the security council, the general assembly was to consider granting Palestine rights and privileges “to ensure its full and effective participation … on equal footing with member states”, according to a draft version of the resolution circulating among diplomats last week.
An official with knowledge of the negotiations said the most recent version circulated by the United Arab Emirates was significantly watered down from earlier drafts and demonstrated “major concessions” by the Palestinians and the Arab Group.
The amended version enhanced the Palestinian mission to the UN with a range of new rights and privileges but made clear that these did not include voting rights.
After a week in which pro-Palestinian encampments were accused of antisemitism, Wong said she understood the Australian Jewish community were “feeling distressed and isolated”.
“You have a right to be safe … and antisemitism has no place anywhere. I stand against it, we all must stand against it.
“This resolution that we have supported is about long-term peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians.”
The vote was the “opposite of what Hamas wants”, Wong said.
The Coalition’s foreign affairs spokesperson, Simon Birmingham, said the government had “proven overnight that they lack the courage to stand against pressure and by sound principles”.
Birmingham said the resolution sent “a shameful message that violence and terrorism get results ahead of negotiation and diplomacy”.
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry had also urged Wong to vote against the resolution.
The ECAJ president, Daniel Aghion, said it was “grandstanding” that would “do nothing to free the Israeli hostages or break the grip of Hamas and alleviate the plight of Gazan civilians”.
“One can only conclude that Australia’s vote was driven by domestic political considerations, and not by principle, which makes it a sad and shameful day for all Australians,” he said.
“Australia should have joined the UK, Canada and the US in abstaining or voting against the resolution.”
Related: Why Anthony Albanese will face a tough call when the UN votes on full membership for Palestine
This was Australia’s most highly anticipated UN vote since December, when it supported an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza and the unconditional release of hostages.
The Australian government continues to express alarm about the “devastating” consequences of an impending Israeli ground offensive into the southern Gaza city of Rafah, where more than 1 million Palestinians have taken shelter.
The Greens leader, Adam Bandt, said the UN vote was a “positive step” but wouldn’t be enough to stop “Netanyahu’s catastrophic invasion of Rafah”.
Australia was not inclined to oppose the UN resolution, after signals from Wong, about the need to kickstart progress towards a two-state solution to end the cycle of violence.
Palestinian diplomats at the UN represent the Palestinian Authority, which exercises limited self-rule in parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank. The Palestinian Authority is dominated by Fatah, a rival to Hamas.
The Australia Palestine Advocacy Network’s president, Nasser Mashni, said the UN had still “failed to recognise Palestinians’ basic, inherent right to participate in decision-making about issues that directly affect their lives and political aspirations”.
