Australia's diplomatic pragmatism

In following the US lead, and in abstaining rather than voting contrary to the US-led vote, the Australian Government is taking a position that is contrary to that of the primary judicial body in the world, being the International Court of Justice, the primary political body in the world, being the United Nations, and the world's major international human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, all of which are in overwhelming agreement that there needs to be a permanent two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict endorsed by the Security Council, that the acquisition of territory by war is unlawful, that the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, are illegal, and that all Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their homes and receive compensation.

How must it have looked to international observers when Australia voted against the Palestinian Authority being granted full membership of the UN cultural agency, UNESCO?

Australia's stance is not about diplomacy, and it's not about pragmatism: it's about taking sides for reasons unconnected with what's in issue and rewarding a country with our support when it is in clear violation of international law. You can't dress conduct like that up in moral garments, which is why there is never any attempt at moral or human justification for the position Australia takes.

The Israeli Dialog opinion poll commissioned by the Yisraela Goldblum suggests widespread Jewish support for apartheid, but only if the occupied territories are annexed, and most Israelis oppose annexation. Fifty nine percent of Israelis want preference in public jobs for Jews over Arabs; 49% want the state to treat Jews better than Arabs; 33% object to Israeli Arabs having the right to vote; 69% object to giving Palestinians the right to vote if Israel "annexes" the West Bank; 74% support separate roads for Jews and Palestinians in the West Bank, and 42% object to their children going to the same school as Arabs.

It wasn't so long ago that white South Africans were doing the same, increasingly supporting the globally condemned apartheid policies of their government and the actions of their security forces. A survey conducted by the Human Science Research Council in February 1984 showed that the vast majority of white South Africans favoured excluding black South Africans from the political system, white schools, residential areas and public amenities. Even when apartheid obviously was on its knees, 57% of white South Africans still favoured detention without trial for suspected violators of security laws.

The victory against apartheid in South Africa was won in the international court of public opinion. The votes cast in the United Nations show a similar weight of global popular opinion in support of the Palestinians as increasingly people see for themselves the human consequences of the policies and practices of the Israeli Government, implemented with the unwavering and uncritical support of the United States.

Too often the Australian Government speaks of moral principles and human rights and freedoms when it suits it, as it did to justify following the US into Iraq; but when it does not, it ignores exactly those precepts and acts on "power principles". Power principles that, according to US diplomatic cables, require any potential leader of our country to know that they have to move to the centre and show their support for the alliance with the United States and, reading between the lines, Israel. That explains why Prime Minister Gillard took the position she did on last week's vote, until wiser counsel and wider party support forced her to a middle ground. And why Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party would have toed the US line had they been in power.

"Pragmatism" will not save the Australian Government from a global reputation for turning a blind eye to the ongoing human rights violations of, and disproportionate use of force against, the Palestinian people if it continues down this diplomatic road. No government and no politician can sit neutral on such a hot issue, and the Australian Government's reluctant abstention from last week's vote will not protect it from worldwide popular opprobrium for the path it has followed and no doubt will continue to follow.