Opinion
Wong’s Palestine remarks had all the substance of a cloud
Peter Hartcher
Political and international editorPenny Wong appears to have made a proposal for the early recognition of a Palestinian state, a step on a “pathway to a peace that’s enduring”.
There is, however, a lot less to this than meets the eye. There was no proposal. There was no plan. The foreign affairs minister spoke of a concept with all the substance of a cloud, and left it floating as lonely as one.
Wong said in a scripted speech delivered to ANU’s Securing Our Future conference on Tuesday that “a secure and prosperous future for both Israelis and Palestinians will only come with a two-state solution. Recognition of each other’s right to exist. A Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel.”
So far, this is simply a restatement of Australia’s long-standing position in favour of a two-state solution.
“We are now 30 years on from the Oslo Accords that put Palestinian statehood at the end of a process,” Wong said.
“The failures of this approach by all parties over decades – as well as the Netanyahu government’s refusal to even engage on the question of a Palestinian state – have caused widespread frustration.”
Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen
Okay, so is she now suggesting a process that puts Palestinian statehood somewhere other than at the end?
She continued: “So the international community is now considering the question of Palestinian statehood as a way of building momentum towards a two-state solution.”
This is simply a description of what some other countries are mooting.
Wong quoted Britain’s Foreign Secretary, David Cameron, saying the UK “will look at the issue of recognising a Palestinian state, including at the United Nations” which, he said, could make the two-state solution “irreversible”.
And that’s as specific as she got. It was a description of the landscape, not a route plan. It created an impression that she might have been thinking about making a trip, but that was about it.
Wong proposed no process, no preconditions, no sequencing, no timing. She’d engaged in no consultations nor any of the diplomatic legwork needed to win support for a serious proposal.
On a subject as sensitive as this, however, an impression was enough to make news.
Australian Muslims preparing to celebrate Eid al-Fitr to mark the end of Ramadan on Wednesday might have formed the impression that Wong was giving them a small token.
Australian Jews certainly formed the impression that she was handing them a studied insult.
“We profoundly disagree with Senator Wong’s implications [that] recognition of Palestinian statehood in the near future could be a ‘way of building momentum towards a two-state solution’,” fumed Colin Rubenstein of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council.
It would merely be seen as a reward to Hamas for its terrorist attack on October 7, he said.
But Wong said nothing about the near future. It was only, as Rubenstein conceded, an impression. The moment she was questioned about it, Wong ran a mile.
“Penny Wong,” the ABC’s Sabra Lane asked her on Wednesday morning, “is Australia ready and willing to recognise Palestine as a state?”
Wong: “Look, we’ve made no such decision. The discussion I want to have is to look at what is happening in the international community.”
The cloud had dissolved into nothing.
Only under questioning did the foreign affairs minister set out preconditions for any recognition of a Palestinian state: “Obviously, we have the immediate conflict. We need to see Hamas release hostages, we need to see a revitalised Palestinian Authority, we need to see an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. We need all of these things immediately.”
And the magic words appeared: “Long term”.
Her point, Wong insisted in her appearances, was that: “Long-term peace will require a two-state solution. We’ve said that for years. That is a bipartisan position, a position that the Labor government has had for many years. And we have reiterated that again last night.”
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese simply stated that there was no change of policy.
So what was Wong’s speech all about? Was it carelessly worded? (No scripted speech on this topic, and to an expert audience, would be slapped together by the office intern.) Was she striking a pose?
The clue is in her speech when she criticised the Greens for being “willing to purposely amplify disinformation, exploiting distress in a blatant and cynical play for votes. With no regard for the social disharmony they are fuelling. This is not some game. There are consequences”.
And she disparaged the Coalition: “Mr Dutton reflexively dismisses concern for Palestinians as ‘Hamas sympathising’. On this, and in his approach to the world, Mr Dutton needs to decide if he wants to be a leader in difficult times – or if he wants to continue being a wrecking ball, making those times even more difficult. Australians know our country needs mature leadership for serious times.”
So Wong was making a contrast with opponents left and right. She set out to create the impression that she was constructively proposing a new policy in apparent sympathy for the Palestinians when, in fact, she was merely striking a pose to impress her constituency on the Labor left.
Wong thought she was simply enjoying the prerogative of the powerless; nothing she says will make the least difference to the war in Gaza. May as well try to give a sly wink to my supporters. Use the Securing Our Future conference to secure her base. And was caught out.
What was that about games, minister?
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.