{"id":1671,"date":"2022-05-26T11:17:55","date_gmt":"2022-05-26T01:17:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nepf.weblogs.anu.edu.au\/?p=1671"},"modified":"2024-05-22T14:11:02","modified_gmt":"2024-05-22T04:11:02","slug":"what-will-be-labors-policy-on-palestine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nepf.org.au\/index.php\/what-will-be-labors-policy-on-palestine\/","title":{"rendered":"What will be Labor’s policy on Palestine?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

With the Australian Labor Party\u2019s (ALP) victory<\/a> in the Australian parliamentary elections on May 21, some policy shifts could be imminent. This is not limited to foreign policy, a space historically underpinned by broad bipartisanship in Canberra. However, ALP\u2019s 2021 political platform<\/a> suggests the party could explore a series of new approaches that reorient Australia\u2019s foreign policy approach and relationships, not limited to the issue of Palestine, if it is willing to expend political capital and take risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Generally, ALP is historically a supporter of Israel, stemming back to the party\u2019s former foreign minister Herbert \u201cDoc\u201d Evatt\u2019s efforts<\/a> as UN General Assembly President to advocate for and pass UN Resolution 181<\/a> in 1947, which partitioned the British mandate of Palestine and led to the official recognition of the state of Israel in 1949. Australian politics has generally produced bipartisan support for Israel and the two-state solution in line with US efforts at the international level, albeit with a left-wing minority in the ALP supportive of Palestine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This minority has grown in recent years, in parallel with US politics and the mainstream Democratic party. Just as in the United States, grassroots organizers have worked to mainstream Palestinian rights as central to any stance on Israel and Palestine. This hit a particular high point in May 2021 during heavy fighting in Gaza, as well as in June 2021 when the ALP\u2019s New South Wales (NSW) Labor wing added Palestinian state recognition<\/a> to its official political platform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although this language existed verbatim in the party\u2019s 2018 National Platform<\/a>, the announcement sent shockwaves throughout the party and Australian politics, highlighting deep divisions within ALP. While not a new debate<\/a> for Labor, the language produced a litany of statements and aggressive accusations against the party\u2019s left wing. This included charges of \u201cCorbyn-style Stalinism<\/a>\u201d and accusations that left wing agitators stifled debate on the final language on Palestine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nationally, party leaders \u2013 including prime minister candidate Anthony Albanese and shadow foreign minister Penny Wong \u2013 have worked tirelessly<\/a> to reaffirm their support for the two-state solution, opposition to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, and the right of Israel to exist and defend itself, with Wong insisting<\/a> \u201cThis is a motion before the NSW conference and is not determinative of the position of the federal parliamentary Labor party.\u201d Importantly, Mark Dreyfus, likely to become Australian\u2019s attorney general, argued<\/a> that \u201cLabor has not committed to recognizing a Palestinian State,\u201d and regularly questions<\/a> the impact of recognition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, while certainly risking oversimplification, the split within ALP reflects that of the US Democratic party<\/a> \u2013 specifically one of national establishment right-wing leadership who are pro-Israel and a younger, activist-based, and grassroots left-wing that is pro-Palestine. Ultimately, internal ALP politics today reflects a scenario in which major political power and decision making does not rest in the pro-Palestine camp, which carries significant future implications following the party’s election victory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although Australia\u2019s foreign policy became a divisive issue during the election \u2013 an abnormality<\/a> for Australian politics \u2013 it is important not to exaggerate differences between the conservatives and Labor. Wong has strenuously expressed this in public debates and statements, going as far as to say \u201cwe are all patriots<\/a>\u201d when pressed on the issue of China and her perceived weakness on the issue. While ALP does carry a different approach<\/a> to foreign policy, specifically as it relates to how it approaches international engagement, the environment, and prioritizing diplomatic mechanisms over securitized approaches, the likelihood of substantial shifts remains open to debate, especially as ALP leadership and its right-wing is wary of risking a deeper debate on foreign policy issues. Palestine certainly falls within this consideration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given ALP leadership statements in response to Palestinian recognition, reasonable doubt is warranted with respect a potential Labor government\u2019s approach to the issue. The platform\u2019s statement is not binding and given the party\u2019s split on Israel that gives the right-wing an edge, it could punt recognition of Palestine to avoid in-fighting that could produce ugly optics or harm other political priorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, this does not mean that a friendlier Palestine policy is not possible. Indeed, given a growing pro-Palestine caucus in ALP, activists and politicians could press for practical policy advancements that support the average Palestinian. This could include increased aid for the Occupied Palestinian Territories \u2013 although Hamas\u2019s status as a terrorist organization harms chances for Gaza. Labor\u2019s left wing could also push for increased engagement with Palestinian groups to builds relationships with the party, or even abstaining on major votes in international forums like the UN General Assembly. While an abstention is a low bar to set, it certainly matters for a country like Australia that has historically<\/a> towed a closer line to the United States on the issue or gone further.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given Labor\u2019s platform<\/a> holds a stated interest in \u201csupporting the international rules based order\u201d and recognizes that \u201ctoday\u2019s global problems require political solutions and the cost effectiveness of peaceful conflict resolution,\u201d a modest shift seems possible, although opportunity for a larger move recognizing Palestine, while possible, simply lacks support in ALP leadership. That said, the party will not adopt support for the BDS, condition aid or trade, or shift from the two-state solution stances it has long held. These changes require a major internal shift within the party that, while currently underway in similar fashion to left-wing US politics, is not imminent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Political capital will also play a major role. Australian foreign policy is heavily focused<\/a> on China, with both parties generally sharing many hawkish views on Beijing\u2019s activities in Asia and the Pacific. A Labor government will not view Palestine, or the Middle East, as a priority over the China file, nor domestic and international environmental policy. Further, terrorism takes precedence over Palestine with respect to the Middle East, especially as it relates to the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. For these reasons, political capital and risk aversion could prevent major shifts on the Palestine file.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The views expressed in the Near East Policy Forum are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the Near East Policy Forum or any of its partner organisations.<\/strong><\/em> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

With the Australian Labor Party\u2019s (ALP) victory in the Australian parliamentary elections on May 21, some policy shifts could be imminent. This is not limited to foreign policy, a space historically underpinned by broad bipartisanship in Canberra. However, ALP\u2019s 2021 political platform suggests the party could explore a series of new approaches that reorient Australia\u2019s […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":28,"featured_media":1880,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_gspb_post_css":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[265946,3781,28791],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1671","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-israel","category-australia","category-international-relations"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nepf.org.au\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1671","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nepf.org.au\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nepf.org.au\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nepf.org.au\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/28"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nepf.org.au\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1671"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nepf.org.au\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1671\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nepf.org.au\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1880"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nepf.org.au\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1671"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nepf.org.au\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1671"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nepf.org.au\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1671"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}