We are approaching the end game. There is a movement towards recognition of Palestine by major Western nations, namely France, the UK and Canada, and including, possibly, Australia and New Zealand.

It should not be forgotten, of course, that some 147 of the UN’s 193 member states already so recognise. Canada’s Prime Minister Carney pretty well summed it up. He noted that Canada had long been committed to a two-state solution as part of a negotiated peace process but added “this approach is no longer tenable. The prospect of a Palestinian state is being eroded before our eyes”.

As recently as 29 July, the movement was advanced by the outcome of the International Conference on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two State Solution. The outcome, inter alia, calls for a ceasefire, a Palestinian state with Gaza unified with the West Bank (the OPT), a transitional administrative committee to operate in Gaza, a reconstruction Trust fund, and presidential elections throughout the OPT within a year under international auspices. The co-chairs of this conference, importantly, were the Permanent Missions of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and France.

Resistance by Zionist supporters, of course, is palpable.

We have the usual derogatory representation of Hamas. Any recognition, it is said, would be rewarding the terrorist organisation Hamas. Another classic is today’s (Sunday, 3 August) news story. Hamas refuses to agree to a ceasefire agreement. Hamas says it will not disarm until there is a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. What the press omit to say, of course, is that Hamas’ position is totally consistent with international law stated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in July 2024, namely that Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank and Gaza and the Palestinians have the right to resist, including by armed force; Palestine has a right of self-determination.

Israel, of course, says that any Palestinian state must be demilitarised. To assert that is to deny the right of self-determination. All states have the right to have a military, a defence force. Israel has that right. Hamas has indicated that it will give up its weapons to a Palestinian government if there is a Palestinian state. That should satisfy all bona fide supporters of the two-state solution.

Another furphy by the Zionist lobby is that there should be no recognition of Palestine because it does not qualify as a state. Well, what qualifies as a state? The Montevideo Convention of 1933, ratified, by the way, by the US, considered determinative of the question, sets the following criteria:

1. a permanent population;
2. a defined territory;
3. government; and
4. capacity to enter into relations with other states.

Items (2) and (3) appear to excite the naysayers.

There is no problem here. As to the issue of a boundary, a boundary exists. It is established by Security Council Resolution (SCR) 242 passed following the Six-day war in 1967 and demanding no acquisition of territory as a result of the war, by SCR 2335 passed in 2016, with the US abstaining, which recognised the illegality of all settlements in the West Bank and called for their evacuation by settlers, by the decision of the ICJ of July 2024, and by the overwhelming acceptance of same by the General Assembly giving effect to the ICJ decision.

The General Assembly vote was passed by a two-thirds majority of member states present and voting – 124 of 181 states voting.

Is there a government?

Well, Israel has done its best to keep the Palestinian Authority separate from Hamas, but this cannot be a disqualification. Hamas is prepared to stand aside for the Palestinian Authority or a temporary body holding the Fort until elections can occur.

So the position appears to be that four of the five permanent members of the Security Council will recognise Palestine, leaving only the US as a potential vetoer of a Security Council Resolution to admit Palestine as a UN state. Would the US want to stand alone?

There appears to be a ray of hope. Australia can and should enhance it – by acting now.

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