The Australian Labor Party Conference:
Affirms Labor’s support
for an enduring and just two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, based on the right of Israel to live in peace within secure borders
internationally recognised and agreed by the parties, and reflecting the
legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to also live in peace and
security within their own state.
“internationally recognised and agreed by the parties”
is excellent, but this resolution goes on to impede agreement between the
parties by blaming Israel only, and by holding out the prospect of unilateral
recognition of a Palestinian-Arab state without that entity reaching any
agreement with Israel
Deplores the tragic
conflict in Gaza and supports an end to rocket attacks by Hamas and the
exercise of the maximum possible restraint by Israel in response to these
attacks.
This suggests a “moral equivalence” between a genocidal
terrorist group and free democratic nation. HOW does the conference propose to “support…
an end to rocket attacks by Hamas”? It doesn’t condemn the attacks or label them
as illegal or immoral. Such criticism is reserved for Israel alone.
Supports a negotiated
settlement between the parties to the conflict, based on international
frameworks, laws and norms
Recognises in government
Labor retained its commitment to two states for two peoples in the Middle East
and specifically
“two states for two peoples” is good
Did not block enhanced
Palestinian status in the General Assembly;
Restated the West Bank, including
East Jerusalem, is occupied territory;
Opposed Israeli settlements on
occupied Palestinian land, recognising that a just, peaceful and enduring
resolution will involve a territorial settlement based on 1967 borders with
agreed land swaps;
Held that the settlements are
illegal under international law.
There is plenty of authoritative legal opinion that
the settlements are legal. Calling them “illegal” is wrong, or at least a
contentious statement.
In fact Jerusalem and the West Bank have never been under “Palestinian” sovereignty. No international law prevents Israel from controlling those territories gained in a defensive war, pending a negotiated settlement.
For several hundred years leading up to World War I, the region was part of the Ottoman Empire. After World War 1, the League of Nations granted Britain a mandate that empowered her to facilitate the creation of a “Jewish National Home” there.
See
Recognises that any
resolution will be based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, a timeframe to
end Israeli occupation, demilitarization of Palestinian territory, agreement on
a solution to Palestinian refugee issues, and resolution of the issue of
Jerusalem’s final status.
There are no “1967 borders”. Before the 1967 war, the belligerents
were separated by an Armistice Line, which is simply where the opposing military
forces were when the fighting stopped in 1949 (the “Green Line”). Beyond the
Green Line were the Jewish Quarter of East Jerusalem and many villages that had
been Jewish for hundreds or thousands of years and had been destroyed by Arab
League forces in 1948-9. All parties agreed that the Green Line was not a final
border. Final borders were to be subject to negotiated agreement between the
parties….
Recognises that settlement
building by Israel in the Occupied Territories that may undermine a two-state
solution is a roadblock to peace. Labor calls on Israel to cease all such
settlement expansion to support renewed negotiations toward peace.
This supports the PA demand that it wants a territory “without
a single Jew” for its state, and is plain anti-Semitic. Israel has many Palestinian-Arab
villages and 1.5 million Palestinian-Arab citizens inside the Green Line. Are
these also “roadblocks to peace”? If the aim is peaceful co-existence between
two states for two peoples, why can’t each state allow citizens of neighbouring
states to live amongst them?
Rejects the boycotts,
divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.
good
Condemns the comments of
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during the recent elections where he ruled
out a Palestinian state and further condemns his appeals to race during the
campaign.
Binyamin Netanyahu did not rule out a Palestinian-Arab
state, yet this resolution condemns only Israel’s PM. There is not a word of
condemnation for genocidal terrorism and incitement to hatred which is endemic
in Arab society.
Recognises a lasting peace
will require a future State of Palestine to recognise the right of Israel to
exist and the State of Israel to recognise the right of Palestine to exist.
Recognises the special
circumstances of the Palestinian people, their desire for respect, and the
achievement of their legitimate aspiration to live in independence in a state
of their own. This is a cause Labor is committed to.
If however there is no progress
in the next round of the peace process a future Labor government will discuss
joining like minded nations who have already recognised Palestine and
announcing the conditions and timelines for the Australian recognition of a
Palestinian state, with the objective of contributing to peace and security in
the Middle East.
Unilateral declarations like this impede progress
towards peace and security; they don't promote it. Why should the Arabs
negotiate a resolution and end of the conflict if the ALP and others around the
world promise them statehood without reconciling with Israel?
No comments:
Post a Comment