Australia’s push for a Palestinian state defies international law and could reward terror
The diplomatic world is on a collision course with reality. As nations like Australia, France, the UK, and Canada scramble to recognize a “State of Palestine,” a disturbing truth is being ignored: this move may be little more than a reward for terror, a diplomatic illusion that defies international law, and a direct slap in the face to a sovereign nation.
The facts on the ground are stark and uncompromising. Just as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong announced their intention to recognize a Palestinian state, Hamas co-founder Sheikh Hassan Yousef publicly hailed the move. In his view and that of other Hamas officials, the recognition serves as a justification for the horrific October 7th atrocities, legitimizing the murder, rape, and butchery of innocent civilians. While Albanese denies this, the perception from the very terrorists he seeks to disarm is diametrically opposed to his claims.
The question remains: who will disarm Hamas and ensure they have no role in a future government, as Albanese demands? The current governing body, the Palestinian Authority (PA), is a paper tiger. Its president, Mahmoud Abbas, is now in his twentieth year of a four-year term, a testament to his fear of a democratic election he knows he would lose to Hamas. Abbas’s rule is a one-man show, answerable only to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), an organization whose 1968 charter openly calls for the “elimination of Zionism in Palestine” through “armed struggle” (Article 9, 15). The infamous chant, “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free,” is straight out of the PLO’s charter—a call not for peace, but for the destruction of Israel.
Prime Minister Albanese has said he was assured by Abbas that the PA would reform, end the abhorrent “pay-for-slay” policy that financially rewards terrorists and their families, and recognize Israel’s right to exist. However, the PA has a documented history of saying one thing in English to Western audiences and another entirely in Arabic to their own people. The PA has also broken every single commitment made in the Oslo Accords, suggesting Albanese may have fallen for a bait-and-switch.
International Law and a Sovereign Nation’s Right
The core of this diplomatic push is a legal and political contradiction. The Knesset, Israel’s parliament, has already voted with a stunning 99 to 9 majority against the formation of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. This near-unanimous vote, with overwhelming support from both government and opposition parties, signals that for the sovereign State of Israel, the “Two-State Solution” is officially dead. How can nations like Australia and France presume to override the will of a democratically elected government on a matter of its own existence?
Furthermore, the recognition of a Palestinian state has a flimsy basis in international law. According to the 1933 Montevideo Convention, a state must possess a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Legal experts argue that Palestine fails to meet these criteria, rendering its recognition a form of “contempt” for international legal concepts. Professor Douglas Feith, a distinguished legal academic and former Under Secretary of Defense, has publicly stated that recognizing a non-existent state is “saying that international law is nonsense.”
The tragic irony is that Palestinian leaders have repeatedly rejected opportunities for statehood. They turned down UN General Assembly Resolution 181 in 1947, walked out of the Camp David negotiations in 2000, and rejected an offer from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008. The reason for these repeated failures is the deep-seated refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist and a commitment to perpetual conflict, a reality chillingly confirmed by the 70% support for the October 7th atrocities among Arabs living in Judea and Samaria.
This global push, rather than bringing peace, risks rewarding a culture of violence and will likely contribute to further bloodshed and heightened tensions, both in the Middle East and at home.
