Pearls and Irritations

Why is it that successive Australian Governments cannot bring themselves to call out Israel for what it is? A state that constantly ignores international law, most recently in the current Gaza conflict where there can be no doubt that war crimes have been, and are being committed against the Palestinian population. What Israel is perpetrating against the Palestinians is genocide on any definition.

Yet when it came to voting yesterday on a UN Resolution advanced by Palestine to give effect to the International Court of Justice decision of 19 July, Australia abstained from voting for it, along with the UK, Canada and Germany. But our neighbour New Zealand voted for it, as did Ireland, Japan and France.

It is worth noting what this Resolution calls for. In essence it demands Israel “brings to an end without delay its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. The timeframe is no later than 12 months.

There are other significant parts of the Resolution that demonstrate Australia’s contempt for the rule of law and international institutions like the ICJ.

The Resolution states that Israel must put “an end to its unlawful policies and practices, including… repealing all legislation and measures creating or maintaining the unlawful situation, including those which discriminate against the Palestinian people”; “Allowing all Palestinians displaced during the occupation to return to their original place of residence”; and “Making reparation for the damage caused to all the natural and legal persons concerned in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. ”

How could a nation purporting to uphold liberal democratic values oppose these measures? A nation that once, under former Prime Ministers Malcolm Fraser and Bob Hawke, led the world on sanctions against that other evil apartheid regime, South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s.

The justification by Australia’s Ambassador to the UN, James Larsen, for this nation refusing to support one of the most oppressed peoples in the world is pure sophistry. “We wanted to vote for a resolution that clearly offered the Palestinian people a path to self-determination and gave the world a path to a two-state solution … however, we are concerned that by making demands of the entire UN membership that go beyond the scope of the advisory opinion, the resolution distracts from what the world needs Israel to do,” Larsen said. The vast number of nations voting don’t agree with that view obviously. Wisdom of the crowds one might say.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s excuse was equally intellectually dishonest. “We wish we were in a position to have been able to support it,” she told ABC radio today. But because the Palestinian delegation refused to accede to demands to narrow its plea for self-determination and an end to the nightmare endured by the Palestinian people since 1947, Australia had to sit on the sidelines.

Of course, if the resolution had used the word “Ukraine” or “Taiwan” the result would have been different.

Larsen and Wong are, no doubt, reflecting the fear of a backlash by “Daddy” in Washington and the incessant Israel lobby in this country which peddles its mistruths and Zionist nationalism through the Australian media, and by duchessing politicians and journalists with free trips to Israel, among other things.

But Australia should not be let off the hook.

Apologists for Israel love to jump in whenever such a resolution is passed to assert that it is a non-binding resolution. It’s not quite as simple as that. Certainly, the UN Charter (Art.11) requires that any question on which action such as sanctions is necessary shall be referred to the Security Council. If the Security Council fails to act, there is the possibility of the General Assembly overruling the Security Council by adoption of a “Uniting for Peace” resolution, the precedent for which was the resolution dated 3 November 1950 appertaining to the then Korean War.

We have not approached that stage as yet, but it must be understood that the resolution adopted yesterday is only non-binding in the sense that the General Assembly cannot enforce it, as the Security Council, or a later Uniting for Peace resolution, might.

That is not to say that member states, including Australia, are not honour-bound by the resolution. After all, this vote was adopted by a two-thirds majority “of members present and voting”. Such majority is required by Art. 18 of the UN Charter for decisions by the General Assembly on important questions, e.g. “recommendations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security” (Art. 18, r.2). In this instance 181 states were “present and voting” – 121 constitutes two-thirds, and 124 voted in favour of the resolution.

So, there we have it. Australia is honour-bound to give effect to the resolution. It can commence by recognising the state of Palestine. It would thus be seen as a responsible member of the Community of Nations in doing so. Failure to do this will result in Australia being seen as continuing to be deeply embedded as a vassal of the US/Israel entity.

Australia’s international reputation is already in tatters. We are seen as a vassal state of the US. A nation that refuses to empathise with nations that have suffered the evil of colonialism. Nations like Ireland and South Africa, which have taken a lead in the ICJ proceedings. We are seen in the region, judging by a recent trip by one of the authors (Greg Barns SC) to Singapore this month, as being irrelevant by nations such as Indonesia and Malaysia because of our support for Israel, despite its genocidal conduct.

Yesterday’s failure to back the Palestinians in the United Nations should shame us all. It is time the prime minister and Senator Wong stood with New Zealand, France, Japan, Ireland and other allies in saying no to Israel and according justice to the Palestinian people.

Share and Enjoy !

SHARE TWEET SHARE COPY EMAIL PRINT