Our media ignores the elephant in the room: Israel’s illegal occupation

Jan 7, 2025
A woman holding a Palestinian flag in the Gaza Strip.

It falls to someone to bring the discussion concerning what is happening in the Middle East, back to the elephant in the room. And what is the elephant? It is the fact of illegal occupation and what is not being done about it.

Our media simply ignores the elephant. It prefers to concentrate upon Hamas terrorists, or the need for Israel to defend itself against Houthi missiles. It is not suggested these topics might be in any way related to the elephant.

Let us remind ourselves of the relevant events of 2024. We commence with the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 19 July. The ICJ found that Israel’s continuing presence in the Occupied Palestinian Terroritories was unlawful, thus entailing international legal obligations of Israel and all states (obviously including Australia). Inter alia, the Court stated that Israel was under an obligation to bring the occupation to an end as soon as possible, to cease all settlement activities and evacuate settlers from the OPT, to make reparations, including restitution of land illegally appropriated. It noted that it was for the General Assembly and Security Council to consider the precise modalities and further actions to bring to an end as rapidly as possible the illegal occupation. Israel, of course, rejects the ICJ opinion. The Israeli lobby points to that, but it is meaningless. It is like a murderer, after conviction, asserting that he did not do it.

On 13 September, the General Assembly passed a resolution on the advisory opinion, which resolution set forth specific steps and actions that Israel and all states should take to implement the opinion. The resolution passed by a vote of 124 in favour, 14 against, and 43 abstentions. Australia was an abstention.

On 18 October, the UN. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, published a position paper which, inter alia, addressed the obligations for the United Nations, including the obligations if there is a continual refusal by Israel to comply with the advisory opinion and the General Assembly resolution. It also addressed the position if the Security Council failed to act due to the veto power of one of the permanent member states. It expressed the view that “when peremptory norms of international law are violated” (as in this case), “the Permanent Members of the Security Council should not be allowed to exercise their veto, as this is contrary to the obligation to uphold peremptory norms of international law”.

Finally, and by way of summary, I refer to the legal opinion published on 1 December 2024 by Dr. Ralph Wilde, Professor of International Law, Faculty of Laws, University College London.

Wilde documents the legal duties of third states to suppress Israel’s violations of international law. He asserts that certain positive obligations arise for third states, and he gives examples. One example is said to be – and I quote:

“Take positive steps to ensure nationals, and other non-state actors, including companies and other legal entities under their jurisdiction, do not recognise the situation created by the illegal presence.

“This requires the following activities to be prohibited.:

  1. “All travel to Israel, including for the purposes of business, tourism, cultural and sporting events, education and other academic activities including research, university exchanges, conference attendance, employment, residence, service in the armed forces.
  2. “All trade (including in arms), investment and any other forms of financing, technology transfer, and provision of charitable support, with the Israeli state and Israeli entities, including universities.
  3. “All other forms of collaboration with the Israeli state and Israeli entities, such as science and technology collaboration, sports games, cultural events, university exchanges and partnerships.”

Do any of those prohibitions ring a bell as to something happening in Australia? I would suggest not. But it is also appropriate to consider some of the votes of Australia on certain UN resolutions during 2024. Back in May, Australia supported a bid by Palestine to become a full member of the UN, a bid which did not fully succeed, but which upgraded Palestinian rights as an observer state. Then we have the 13 September resolution referred to above, when Australia abstained from a vote calling for an end to the occupation. That position appears to have changed when, in early December, Australia voted yes to a resolution calling for Israel to withdraw from the OPT and seeking an international conference to jumpstart a two-state solution. Finally, on 19 December, Australia voted in favour of a resolution recognising a permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the OPT, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the Syrian Golan, including in respect of the natural resources of those areas. So, some action needs to be recognised.

Australia has not, however, taken many positive steps necessary to not recognise the situation created by the illegal occupation. The government has not recognised the State of Palestine, imposed sanctions, or halted trade with Israel, notwithstanding the fact that in the West Bank annexation is creeping, demolition of Palestinian structures is rampant, and Palestinian culture is everywhere under attack. And then there is Gaza, where the Palestinian population is being thinned, no doubt with the prospect of later Israeli settlement.

To the contrary, our government does such things as appoint Israel lobbyist Jillian Segal as Special Envoy to combat Antisemitism. Whatever positive things Segal might do to combat antisemitism, she is clearly, as the chair of the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce, promoting collaboration with Israel and Israeli entities. Such conduct is in the nature of aid and assistance to Israel such as to enable Israel to support and maintain its unlawful occupation.

Government ministers and their opposition counterparts, when addressing the conflict in the Middle East, consistently call for the release of Israeli hostages held by Palestinian resistance, i.e. Hamas, without ever referring to the ICJ opinion and the subsequent UN General Assembly resolution and calling at the same time for an end to the occupation. Similarly, the Australian press, including the ABC, does the same. Never does an interviewing journalist ask a question based on the demand of the ICJ and General Assembly for an end to the occupation.

Indeed, the media never misses a chance to misinform, or to promote Israel’s position. A clear example of the latter is the death of ex-President Jimmy Carter, and the reporting of such. Nowhere is the public informed that Carter was the author in 2006 of a serious and substantial book entitled “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”, a work which clearly takes a pro-Palestinian position. Carter likened the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands to South African apartheid. The book was a best-seller.

By way of a concluding remark, may I add this. The two-state solution on the ’67 borders, as ordered by the ICJ, appears to be the only prospect for long-term peace. It is the only hope for Palestinians, and Israelis. Without it, Israelis will face the continuing resistance of Palestinians and Arab peoples, and the continuing wars and hatred that will be inevitable, making life for Israelis, and Palestinians, necessarily problematic.

Share and Enjoy !