A United Nations conference in New York between 17 and 20 June will be a defining moment for the future of Palestinian statehood and the endlessly debated, but never resolved, policy known as the two-state solution.

With Israel openly declaring that it will now take full possession of Gaza, the timing could not be more apposite. It will confront Australia with an inescapable decision. Will it finally vote in favour of Palestinian statehood and bring to an end the endless equivocation or will it announce to the assembled nations that it has never really believed in the two-state solution and that fear of being accused of antisemitism has carried the day?

The Murdoch press has already joined the fray with two designated security experts writing in The Australian (22 May) and arguing that support for Palestinian statehood will be tantamount to standing in line with the terrorists. We can be sure that this is but the opening salvo in a long campaign. But we can also be confident that the arguments will proceed without the context necessary for the Australian public to understand why global opinion is now ready to favour the Palestinian cause.

To begin with, we must go back to the decision of the International Court of Justice in July last year about Israel’s ongoing occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel captured all three territories in 1967 by military force. That did not allow legal annexation then or now. Passage of time does not alter the legal situation. Israel is therefore required to bring about an end to the unlawful occupation as rapidly as possible. It should evacuate all existing Jewish settlements and immediately cease all new settlements. It should pay reparations to the Palestinian community for all damage and exploitation of resources since 1967.

The assertion of Palestinian rights was equally emphatic. They were entitled to self-determination “a right that constituted a peremptory norm of international law in such a situation of foreign occupation”. Israel has the obligation not to impede the advance towards self- determination “including its right to an independent and sovereign state over the entirety of the occupied territories”. Turning to general principles the Court reaffirmed:

“The need for universal adherence to and implementation of the rule of law… and its solemn commitment to an international order based on the rule of law and international law, which together is essential for peaceful co-existence and co-operation among states.”

So in July 2024 the ICJ had planted its standard firmly in the ground. Any subsequent discussion about Palestinian rights had to proceed from there. There is little to suggest that the Australian Government had taken this on board or the earlier decision of 26 January 2024 that there was a plausible case to suggest that Israel was engaging in genocide, a view which has now been affirmed by the vast majority of the world’s genocide scholars. Plausibility has been replaced by certainty. In the aftermath of these truly momentous decisions, all has changed, changed utterly. Nothing could be the same again.

But the Australian Government provided no appropriate guidance for the electorate. There were few references to the changing legal landscape and certainly no explanation of our responsibilities under international law and particularly obligations flowing from our endorsement of the genocide convention. The unavoidable conclusion was that the senior ministers wanted to avoid the subject altogether. I am not aware that there was any official reaction to the pro-Israel camp followers who explained it all as the product of a wave of antisemitism that had suddenly overwhelmed the whole bench on the ICJ.

In a statement delivered in the aftermath of the election, Foreign Minister Penny Wong criticised both the Greens and the Coalition for their criticism of her government’s policy on Gaza. Electoral success had,in fact “vindicated its attempt to craft a balanced and moderate policy on the vexed issue of the Middle East”. The language is telling. How could anyone adopt a moderate policy when genocide is underway and witnessed every day? And balanced? Does this mean what I think it does — an even-handed approach between the victims of genocide and its perpetrators? Really? And vexed meaning causing irritation rather than outrage which the minister clearly thinks ill-mannered.

The government’s expressed desire to maintain social cohesion by avoiding too great an involvement in overseas conflict would have more heft were it not for our enthusiastic engagement in the war in Ukraine. Whatever can be said about it, our double standards are there for all to see. Russia is judged by one standard, Israel by quite another. Wong lectures Russian President Vladimir Putin about international law in a way that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is never subject to. Moscow’s annexation of the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine is an international outrage; Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine passes without comment, let alone censure, a position which has been totally discredited by the ICJ last July as indicated above.

What is at stake here is Australia’s standing in the world. The easy, everyday tolerance of Israel’s utter contempt for international law is on open display, as is our own high-end hypocrisy. Will anyone ever again take seriously Australia’s well-known habit of chiding other countries about their record on human rights and our endless advocacy of what we call the rules-based international order?

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.