IN THE MEDIA
Wong’s Middle East proposals would make things worse
Oct 9, 2024 | Colin Rubenstein
Canberra Times – 8 October 2024
The first step to solving a problem is to identify its cause. In three speeches at the UN, Foreign Minister Penny Wong demonstrated how a failure to correctly identify the cause of a problem can lead to proposing measures that are counter-productive and cannot succeed.
The Foreign Minister’s two main themes were a set timeline for the declaration of Palestinian statehood prior to the end of negotiations, and ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon.
The push for a timeline to fulfil the Palestinian aspiration for recognition might make sense if Israel’s behaviour was the obstacle to a peaceful resolution. However, recent history proves conclusively that Palestinian rejectionism is the actual barrier.
Then Palestinian Authority (PA) president Yasser Arafat rejected generous offers of a Palestinian state at Camp David in 2000, following which he instigated the Second Intifada in which terrorists killed more than 1000 Israelis, and at Taba in 2001. Current PA President Mahmoud Abbas simply abandoned negotiations in 2008 when presented with an even more generous offer.
Israel also unilaterally withdrew from Gaza completely in 2005, leaving behind intact agriculture infrastructure, as well as from areas of the northern West Bank. The intention was that the Palestinians would live alongside Israel in peace, paving the way for further West Bank withdrawals, and ultimately a two-state peace. Instead, Hamas took over in Gaza, and turned the strip into a terror statelet, starting multiple wars.
During US-mediated negotiations in 2014, according to subsequent comments by US mediator the late Martin Indyk, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu was “sweating bullets” to make a deal, but Abbas “walked away”.
Abbas has since refused to even talk to Israel about a two-state peace, instead pursuing a strategy of demonising it in international forums. Meanwhile, the PA has been encouraging terrorism through pervasive anti-Israel incitement and glorification of terrorists, and a “pay for slay” scheme, which provides generous financial rewards to imprisoned terrorists or their families if they’re killed.
Abbas’ reaction to the October 7 atrocities was to extend the “pay for slay” scheme to those responsible.
The PA is clearly not a peace partner. Even worse, the general consensus is that Hamas would overthrow it, as it did in Gaza, if Israel withdraws from the West Bank. This is clearly not a risk Israel can take – a terror entity in the West Bank, alongside the country’s core population centres, would leave Israel perilously vulnerable to the kinds of attacks we have seen from Gaza.
Senator Wong did say the PA would need to be reformed, but didn’t specify how this would feature in her proposed timeline, and left no room for considering what would happen if these efforts did not succeed.
As it is, her push for premature recognition not only overturns decades of bipartisan agreement that the route to peace is direct negotiations between the two sides, leading to a compromise agreement and only then recognition, but it also rewards the recalcitrant party, thus encouraging further rejectionism.
Furthermore, having this shift clearly prompted by the current war demonstrates to Palestinians that conducting mass terror attacks and then deliberately sacrificing their own civilian populations as human shields reaps huge dividends.
Wong’s push for ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon are also counter to what she says she would like to achieve. She has repeatedly, and correctly, said there is no role for Hamas in Gaza’s future, but a ceasefire now would leave it in power there.
In her General Assembly speech, she also called for the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1701. This resolution, which ended the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, demanded Hezbollah withdraw from the border to beyond the Litani River, and disarm.
Yet the UN force UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army, which are supposed to enforce 1701, have shown no capacity to do so. The only hope for the implementation of 1701 is for Hezbollah to agree in the face of Israeli military pressure. A ceasefire now would dash any hope that Hezbollah would agree.
The ceasefire push is understandably motivated by the tragedy of civilian deaths. However, Hamas and Hezbollah embed themselves among civilians in part because they know this will make such deaths inevitable, and bring Israel under pressure.
Constantly criticising Israel for such deaths, as Wong does, just encourages more of these cruel human sacrifice tactics. Instead, she should attribute the blame to the terrorists responsible and acknowledge that, through its efforts to warn and evacuate civilians, Israel has achieved a far better civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio than seen in all similar recent urban warfare campaigns.
Of course, with Hamas and Hezbollah committed to continuing to attack Israel until it is destroyed, any ceasefire that leaves them with the capacity to regroup will only result in further devastation and civilian casualties in the future – costing rather than saving lives in the long run.
It is appropriate for foreign ministers to float initiatives and ideas to resolve international problems, but they should first be very sure they are improving the situation rather than exacerbating it.
