In an interview with the ABC, Chris Sidoti, Commissioner on the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, said the decision on recognition of Palestine was necessary, but not sufficient in and of itself.

Sidoti, who is Australia’s former Human Rights Commissioner, spoke to Sally Sara on Radio National Breakfast.

Sally Sara: Well, let’s take a look at some of the legal ramifications of Australia’s decision to signal that it will recognise Palestine. Chris Sidoti is a human rights lawyer, Australia’s former human rights commissioner and currently a commissioner on the UN’s Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestine Territory and Israel, and joins me now. Chris Sidoti, welcome back to Radio National Breakfast.

Chris Sidoti: Thanks, Sally. It’s good to be talking to you again.

Sara: What do you make of Australia’s decision that it will recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly next month?

Sidoti: It’s a decision that is necessary, but not a decision that is sufficient. We need to be doing more than this, and certainly we need to be moving from from rhetoric to action. Now, recognition of the State of Palestine is a step in the right direction. It’s an action that needs to be taken, but of itself it’s not sufficient.

Sara: How does the stance of the Albanese Government now, how does that reflect on Australia’s stance at the UN on the question of Palestine in 1947?

Sidoti: I think it actually implements what Australia said in 1947. I’m, I was very interested to hear Senator (Michaelia) Cash talk about this being a premature move. It’s about 78 years too late. In 1947, Australia voted for two states in the area that was covered by the then British Mandate, a Jewish state and an Arab state, a Palestinian state. We recognised the Jewish state, the state of Israel, within six months of having voted on that UN resolution. We are now, 78 years later, finally getting round to recognising a Palestinian state. So I don’t think this can be criticised as as hasty action. It simply is Australia’s further implementation of the commitment it made to two states in 1947.

That has been a commitment that it has held consistently since then.

And it’s a commitment that is reflected in international law, the State of Palestine meets the legal criteria for recognition as a state. And so, as I say, it’s been damn slow. It’s been a long time, but it is certainly necessary at this stage. But we need to do more than that.

Recognising the State of Palestine is certainly sending a message both to the Israeli Government and to Hamas, both of which oppose two states. Let me say, it’s sending a message to both of them that the only immediate way forward in the Middle East is two states. It may be that in time some other form of negotiation takes place. There may be variations of borders, for example. But at this point the borders are clear as a result of UN decisions. There are, in fact, two entities there and the international criteria are met.

But the next step has to be how we actually persuade the Israeli Government to accept that the Palestinian Authority, recognised as the government of Palestine, has agreed to a two-state solution and has done so for some time. But the government of Israel and the Israeli parliament remain fully determined to prevent it.

Sara: Do you think that recognising Palestinian statehood rewards Hamas for its terrorism?

Sidoti: Well, Hamas likes to say it does, because it needs to say it does for political reasons. But in fact, Hamas is opposed to states and so, far from us rewarding Hamas for terrorism, I agree with the statements made by the former head of the Israeli Foreign Affairs department.

It doesn’t reward terrorism. It’s a very clear indicator that the only immediate way forward is two states. And so that’s something that neither Hamas nor the Israeli Government wants to hear.

Sara: From a legal perspective, what does recognition of Palestine trigger, and particularly given that a very significant number of countries around the world had already given recognition to a Palestinian state?

Sidoti: It triggers a boost in diplomatic relations and therefore a boost in relationships generally. But you’re quite right. The majority of United Nations members already recognise the State of Palestine, about 140 of them. And that hasn’t shifted the Israeli Government.

That’s why I say it’s necessary, but not sufficient. We need to be applying greater pressure on all the parties in Israel and Palestine to move towards peace, security and an end to violence, safety and prosperity for all the people who live in that area.

Sara: Yesterday, I spoke with the former prime minister of New Zealand and a former head of the United Nations Development Program, Helen Clark. And when talking about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, she used the term unfolding genocide. Let’s take a listen.

Clark: Because if something is unfolding before your eyes, you have a duty to prevent it. The 1948 convention is about the prevention of genocide. And the world has to act to stop this materialising into a full-blown genocide.

Sara: These allegations of genocide against Israel are still before the International Court of Justice, and it could be some years before we get a full determination. What term are you using right now to describe the situation?

Sidoti: Well, so far we’ve not used the term genocide. This is an issue that we’re looking at. And we’ll be releasing our report on the subject in the middle of September. Yes, the International Court of Justice moves very slowly, which is why we have decided that our commission of inquiry needs to examine this subject. We’ve almost completed that work. And, as I say, we’ll be giving our views publicly in our report in the middle of September.

Sara: On your work with the UN Commission and its inquiry on the occupied Palestine territory in Israel, along with two other commissioners, you resigned from your positions but will continue your work through to November. Why did you resign, and why do you hope to continue your work to November and perhaps beyond?

Sidoti: I resigned, as did the other commissioner, because our chair, Navi Pillay, decided that it was time for her to retire. She’s 84 and is finding it more and more difficult to travel. And so she decided it was time to retire. The commissioners are appointed by the president of the UN Human Rights Council, and our decision was that we would give him an opportunity to reconstitute the commission as a whole. I did indicate I was willing to be reappointed, and that may be the case, but it’s entirely in the president’s hands. And as to why we decided to wait until November, firstly, that gives him an opportunity to make the necessary consultations and select the new commissioners. And secondly, we’d already planned our reporting program for the year. We will have completed that by the beginning of November. But our determination was not to go until we’d finished our work, the work that we’d planned this year. And that includes this report on genocide.

Republished from ABC Radio National Breakfast, 12 August 2025

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