Balance is the key in the Middle East

Howard’s deviation from the traditional Australian policy of hands-off neutrality drew criticism from a former Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser. Fraser stressed the need for Australia to revert to “a balance in Middle East policy that asserted Israel's right to survival and security, but also the right of the Palestinian people to their own state”.

Enter Kevin Rudd and his decision to vote twice against Israel at the UN General Assembly, one resolution demanding Israel to halt illegal settlement expansion on Palestinian territory, and a second calling for the Geneva Conventions to be fully applied to the Palestinian territories.

It’s no coincidence that Rudd’s move at the UN happened to be within a few days either side of Barack Obama’s ascendancy to US president and the execution of the Bali bombers. With the election of Barack Obama comes a great struggle to unwind the previous eight years of Middle Eastern policy blunders in both Washington and Canberra. Obama has been left with the tough job of combating a fever of anti-Americanism in the Arab world. Changing two votes at the UN is Rudd’s symbolic way of showing that he’s committed to turning the page in the Middle East.

We entered a fight we had no business in. Rudd, it appears, is attempting to pull us out of the Middle East quagmire and rebuild Australia’s image as a friendly Western country that supports peace, while extending a hand out to both Israel and the Arab world.

Australia’s Jewish lobby and the Liberal Party have criticised the UN votes, questioning the need to change them. There are reasons aplenty.

A return to a balanced approach in the Middle East will improve our image in the Arab and Islamic world, alleviating the hostility directed towards us, and ultimately decreasing the risk of a terrorist attack on our shores.

It will also encourage Obama to exert pressure on Israel to abide by international conventions and previous peace agreements it has avoided under Bush. The move may also help persuade Israel to abandon belligerent policies against the Palestinians and its neighbours, and instead opt for a final peace settlement. Indeed, some Israelis have expressed the need for the international community to lean heavily on Israel.

The domestic benefits from such a policy demonstrate the sensitivity of the Arab-Israeli conflict. After years of racial tension in Australia under the Howard government, a policy of equal friendship to the Islamic world and Israel will help soothe inter-racial relations, and re-emphasise the multi-cultural foundations of our country.

The Arab-Israeli conflict requires a delicate approach. The domestic and global repercussions resulting from Howard’s active, one-sided engagement in the region highlights how quickly things can turn sour if a failed policy is pursued. Decades of positive Australian image in the Arab world and harmony between its diverse ethnic communities reveals how successful a balanced, hands-off approach to the Middle East can be.

The sooner Rudd extricates Australia from this quagmire by reverting to neutrality, the sooner our positive image in the Arab world will be restored.