Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the 60 years that have passed since 1948 the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has continued to shape the outlook, animosities and aspirations of successive generations of both Palestinians and Israelis. For Israelis, 1948 is celebrated as the year in which Israel was established, following a war of independence in which Jewish courage, determination and resilience were to triumph against overwhelming odds. The full significance of 1948 for Israelis is measured against the backdrop of centuries of Jewish persecution in the heartlands of Europe. Israel is not only seen as a return to the Promised Land; it also holds the promise of security. As the founder of modern-day Zionism, Theodore Herzl, argued, only self-determination and statehood can guarantee that past horrors are never repeated.

In contrast, Palestinians refer to 1948 as the year of the Nakba, or catastrophe, when the majority of Palestine’s indigenous Arab population lost their land and homes and were forced into exile. It is in this context that Palestinians lay claim to the right of return for Palestinian refugees and it is against the backdrop of their historical claims to Palestine that Palestinians seek the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

These two competing national narratives of Israeli independence and statehood versus Palestinian dispossession and exile are inextricably linked, and I raise them here today because 1948 remains at the very heart of the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. I have spoken about the importance of 1948 before in this chamber, and I would refer those interested to a speech I made on 17 March this year. Suffice to say that, in its support for peace, this motion by definition speaks to both of these histories.

The June war of 1967 and Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza were to fundamentally change the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Israel justifies the occupation as a defensive measure against continuing Palestinian violence. Palestinians see Israel’s refusal to end its occupation as a deliberate attempt to thwart Palestinian aspirations for statehood and self-determination. Whichever of the two you accept, the reality is that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has continued to exact an enormous toll in human life on both sides.

According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, in the six months leading up to and including July 2008, 29 Israelis were killed, four of whom were children, and a further 251 Israelis were injured. It is estimated that well over 2,000 rockets have been launched from Gaza into Israel since the beginning of 2008 alone, terrorising the civilian population who live within their reach. Israelis still live with the very real threat of suicide bombings, for which Hamas and Islamic Jihad have been largely responsible. The continued indiscriminate targeting of innocent Israeli civilians must and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

For Palestinians the conflict has been much deadlier and far more devastating. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs puts the number of Palestinians killed in the six-month period leading up to and including July 2008 at 435 individuals. This compares with 396 Palestinians killed in the whole of 2007. Of the 435 Palestinians killed, 76 were children. In the same six-month period a further 1,628 Palestinians were injured. Palestinians live with the daily threat of Israeli military incursions and they continue to bear the overwhelming brunt of this conflict in terms of numbers killed and injured.

The occupation has also had a devastating effect on Palestinian economic and social life. Between January and July 2008 Palestinians were under curfew for a combined total of 1,050 hours. Continuing restrictions on the movement of Palestinians as a result of Israeli checkpoints and roadblocks, the impact of Israel’s separation wall that cuts through parts of the West Bank, periodic house demolitions and the expansion of Israeli settlements all undermine any possibility of normality or security for Palestinians and severely disrupt Palestinian economic and social life.

The looming humanitarian crisis that many warn of in the occupied territories is most acute in Gaza. This is especially the case following Israel’s decision to further restrict cross-border traffic for both goods and people into and out of the Gaza Strip after the violent takeover of Gaza by Hamas in June 2007. The virtual closure of Gaza’s borders has seen the price of imported commodities increase in a region where three-quarters of Gaza’s population depend to some extent on food aid and over half of all households live in poverty. Border closures have also led to severe shortages in fuel, water and medical supplies in Gaza, leading Christian Aid and many other NGOs to warn of an impending humanitarian implosion.

The strongest criticism of Israel’s decision to close Gaza’s major crossing points and restrict the movement of humanitarian aid has come from the United Nations. In January this year the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights referred to the border closures as a form of collective punishment, a charge that was again echoed in March by the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs. It is within this context that the sense of urgency currently underwriting the need for peace and a lasting resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict becomes apparent.

Since 1993 and the signing of the Oslo accords, there have been a number of initiatives aimed at achieving a negotiated settlement between Palestinians and Israelis. Whilst a final peace agreement has remained elusive, I believe these initiatives give us cause for hope, if only for the way that they continue to position Palestine and Israel at the forefront of international debate. The Saudi peace plan first announced by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdullah in 2002 and later endorsed by Arab governments during a meeting of the Arab League Summit in Beirut in 2003 is one such initiative. The plan included an offer by all Arab states to normalise their diplomatic relations with Israel, including recognising Israel’s right to exist as well as the integrity of its borders in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal from all the territories it seized in 1967.

More recently, the Annapolis peace conference hosted by the United States in November 2007 offered the first real sign of a return to negotiations since 2001. During the conference both sides gave a commitment to implement their respective obligations under the 2003 road map and to resolve all outstanding issues, including all core issues, without exception.

Whilst it is important that we continue to support diplomatic efforts aimed at ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it is equally important that we learn from those mistakes on which past negotiations have faltered and ultimately failed. If the failure of the Oslo accords has taught us anything, it is that the peace process cannot succeed without both parties reaching agreement on final status issues, including the status of Jerusalem, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, settlement, security, borders and water. And there can be no lasting settlement without both Israel and Palestine recognising each other’s right to exist within mutually agreed upon and secure borders.

Despite a succession of new interim agreements, timetables and promises made since the signing of the Oslo accords, the key factors that fuel this conflict remain essentially the same. Since 1993, Israel has continued to expand its settlements in the West Bank, in contravention of both international law and a host of negotiated agreements and accords. The current route taken by Israel’s separation wall cuts through Palestinian towns and farmland, effectively annexing nine per cent of the West Bank and undermining the very idea of land for peace. The daily reality of occupation continues to fragment and frustrate Palestinian life. There has been no measurable improvement in the conditions under which Palestinians live. If anything, life has become worse, creating an environment in which the sense of hope that the Oslo accords once inspired has been replaced by anger and cynicism.

On the other hand, the repeated failure of the Palestinian Authority to halt rocket attacks on Israel, the violent rift that now exists between Fatah and Hamas, which has destroyed any semblance of Palestinian unity and greatly weakened the Palestinian position, and the refusal of Hamas to denounce violence or recognise Israel’s right to exist create significant stumbling blocks when it comes to peace.

Australia has played an important role in encouraging peace initiatives between Palestinians and Israelis that are consistent with our commitment to upholding the rule of international law, to pursuing multilateral diplomacy as a middle power and to advocating the idea of responsible international citizenship. Recently, the Australian government announced a doubling of Australia’s aid contribution to the occupied territories to $45 million for 2008. I want to take this opportunity to lend my strong support to this decision. Australia’s aid includes $25 million in assistance to Palestinians affected by the worsening situation in Gaza and the West Bank and $20 million to support the implementation of the Palestinian Reform and Development Plan. Few are under any illusion that the road to peace will be anything other than long and arduous, but it is a road that must be travelled and Australia has a significant role to play in that. I welcome and acknowledge the presence of Izzat Abdulhadi, head of the General Delegation of Palestine to Australia and New Zealand, who is in the chamber this evening. (Time expired)

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the current deputy chair of this parliament’s Friends of Palestine group, it gives me pleasure to support this private member’s motion in the federal parliament. This motion recognises the enormous cost of the current Israel-Palestine conflict, condemns violence as an obstacle to peace and notes the progress and requirements of peace initiatives in the Middle East.

It is very important that we who support the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people speak up in this place and that we send a message to Palestinians both in the occupied territories and here in Australia that we do care, that we are touched by their plight and that we will work with them and others for a better future in that most troubled part of the world. Peace can never be built on denial; the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa proved that. No-one should have to deny their history. Equality between people is about acknowledging your own past and not seeing someone else’s past as a threat to your future. There is pain, humiliation and suffering on both sides; there is a right to a secure future on both sides; there are grievances on both sides that must be set aside.

This motion recognises the efforts of the quartet led road map to peace. In exchange for statehood, the road map requires the Palestinian Authority to make democratic reforms and to abandon the use of terrorism. Israel, for its part, must support and accept the emergence of a reformed Palestinian government and end settlement activity. The road map presents an entirely credible framework and plan leading towards a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians, but the reality is a million light years away. The fine diplomatic language could not be further removed from what is happening on the ground.

The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has just completed her 17th visit to the region in the past two years and is pushing for an agreement by the end of this year, to coincide with the end of President George Bush’s term in January 2009. Amid strong doubts that any deal can be achieved, she admitted the talks were ‘intensive’ but said:

God willing, and with the goodwill of the parties ... we have a good chance to succeed.

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said, ‘Just because we have not yet succeeded does not mean we have failed,’ but certainly reiterated that the ongoing settlement building was an ever-present spoke in the wheels of peace. Israel has nearly doubled the number of homes under construction in Jewish settlements in the West Bank this year. The housing ministry had begun work on 433 new units between January and May, compared with 240 in the same period last year. More than 1,000 buildings, representing 2,600 housing units, were being built in settlements. Condoleezza Rice has criticised the settlement activity, describing it as ‘not helpful’; settlements on occupied land are illegal under international law. Recently, Israeli peace group Peace Now reported that the growth of illegal settlements is escalating.

A report released by the Israel bar has stated that widespread use of torture and intimidation, especially against Palestinians in Israeli prisons, is ongoing. Settlers in the West Bank inflict cruelty on the local Palestinian population, seemingly without reprimand. An entire network of roads is being built within Jerusalem and within the occupied territories that will keep settler traffic separate from local Arab traffic. Two populations, Israeli and Palestinian, will occupy this two-layered state simultaneously and separately, passing each other, never meeting. For some Palestinians a short 15-minute trip will turn into a one- to two-hour expedition. Israel is creating an Arab-free environment within the Arab West Bank.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel found that 50 per cent of Israelis said they would not live in the same building as Arabs and would not befriend them or have them in their homes. I am sure the same results would be achieved if you asked Arabs these questions about Israelis. There is the controversial barrier Israel is building in and around the West Bank, described as a security measure by Israel and as a land grab by Palestinians: the separation wall, which does not follow the green line separating Israel from the West Bank but loops into Palestinian areas and around Israeli settlements. I ask the obvious question: how can there be a viable Palestinian state with all of these incursions into Palestinian territory?

A considerable obstacle to getting things done is the dysfunctional legislative process where governments are multiparty coalitions of mainstream and special interest groups. There are ideologues who are opposed to any concessions at any cost—for example, settler groups are gaining strength in Israel, and Hamas controls the Gaza Strip in conflict with the other Palestinian faction, Fatah.

This motion notes the involvement of Saudi Arabia in peace initiatives. I commend that involvement and urge all the Arab countries of the region to become part of a wider peace process that both lends practical and moral support to the Palestinians and advances mutual understanding and respect with Israel. I acknowledge the efforts of both the Saudis and Yemenis in helping broker both talks and agreements between Hamas and Fatah. Australia does have a role in encouraging and supporting peace initiatives.

One important thing we must make sure of is that we do not allow those in the region to fall into the habit of preferring a state of war to a state of peace. The dispossession and dislocation of 1948 and 1967 must be recognised and appreciated, as must Israel’s right to exist securely behind secure borders. Being passionately pro Palestinian and passionately pro Israel need not be mutually exclusive. Many are talking about the impossibility of a partitioned state and advocating one country. Is it impossible for the same country to be shared by both Israelis and Palestinians? You cannot have a Jewish state without forcibly removing Palestinians and you cannot have a Palestinian state without forcibly removing Jews. In fact, the British, who created the partition plan of 1947, recognised with the Peel commission in 1937 that you cannot draw a line between these two people. There needs to be a credible peace process to provide hope that all of the misery we are now experiencing is worth it in the end. For Palestinians, the one big idea of a homeland has to stay alive.

The pressure that ended apartheid, ended partition in Northern Ireland, ended the Marcos regime in the Philippines and brought down the Berlin Wall did not come from governments. It came primarily from movements within society—from the people, the schools, the churches and the homes. Maybe it is time for Palestinians and Israelis and the world community to imagine a different future and a different relationship.

It is important in this context to talk in terms of hope. I was certainly impressed when I read recently in Martin Chulov’s article in the Australian of ‘a crippled old Arab warlord’ sitting ‘reflecting on the future of his one-time sworn enemy’. He is Mohammed Ghawanmeh, interviewed by Martin Chulov. At the end of this article, this person who has dedicated his life to fighting Israel says:

All my life I dedicated towards opposing (Israel),” he says, thumbing through photographs of Islamic Jihad members, some of whom fell in battle while others remain in prison. On a wall in his living room is a yellowing black-and-white shot of Khaled Islambouli, the assassin of former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, who in 1979 became the first Arab leader to make peace with Israel.

Asked why an image of Islambouli takes pride of place in Ghawanmeh’s inner sanctum, he says: “Sadat should have asked us before doing that. But that was then, it is a different reality. We still see 1948 as the Catastrophe, but they are here to stay now.

“That is a reality. It’s time for us to build our futures.”

We have just concluded the Olympics, and I would like to note that the Palestinians sent four athletes to the Olympics, two runners and two swimmers. I want to mention Hamse Abdouh, who trained at the YMCA pool in Arab East Jerusalem, an 18-metre pool. The thought of swimming in a 50-metre pool caused him panic. ‘How will I get to the end of the pool?’ were his thoughts. But he did. His best time for the 100-metre butterfly was 10 seconds off the world record, so, to put it politely, his chances of achieving a world medal were slim. But, when interviewed, he said that the idea of walking into the stadium and having people shout ‘Palestine! Palestine!’ was the real medal for him. It is sad that it is only at major sporting events like the Olympics that something called Palestine really exists today.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I lived in Gaza for 2½ years, from 2002 to 2004. During that time I worked for UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which was established by the General Assembly in 1949 to provide humanitarian relief to the Palestinian refugees who lost their homes and livelihoods as a result of the conflict in 1948. The agency was only ever intended to be temporary, until there was a resolution of the conflict. But, as we are all only too aware, the conflict in Palestine is 60 years old this year and, without a major political breakthrough, there is little prospect of a peaceful settlement in the foreseeable future.

During my time in Gaza, my UN colleagues and I were not housed in a high-security compound; we lived in the community alongside the local inhabitants. We were there during aerial bombing campaigns, targeted assassinations and military incursions, and we shared the fear and sense of vulnerability generated by these actions. We witnessed the everyday struggle of people to carry on meaningful and productive lives under conditions of extreme hardship. We also spent time in Israel and we saw the impact of suicide bombings and rocket attacks on communities. We felt the anxiety of driving in the city or eating out at a cafe and wondering if the bus next to our car or the person who had just walked into the cafe wearing a big coat was going to blow up.

This conflict has profound global implications, generating flow-on effects within the Middle East and around the world. Militant Islamic groups, including within our own region, continue to refer to the Israel-Palestine conflict as a root cause to incite violence. The issue unites different groups and countries in a way that could never be achieved in its absence. Concomitantly, resolution of the issue would undercut a large part of the cause and focus of radical Islam and would alter the whole balance in the Middle East. It would also deliver millions of human beings from interminable fear and suffering. It is in our national interest and in our interest as good global citizens to concern ourselves.

Australia is already providing humanitarian aid and development assistance, as my colleague said, to the amount of $45 million this year. In my view, Australia can also play a constructive supporting role through the United Nations in building international consensus and advocacy for urgent and comprehensive action to achieve a peace settlement. We know that the majority of Palestinians and Israelis support peace efforts and are prepared to accept compromises to achieve this objective.

As occurred in Northern Ireland, and as with other seemingly intractable conflicts throughout the world, ultimately the only way out of the quagmire of historical hurts, tit-for-tat violence and present-day suffering will be through a dialogue between the relevant political actors—in this case, Fatah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, Israel and the neighbouring states—supported by the wider international community and civil society to reach a political settlement backed up by democratic institution building and economic reconstruction.

The settlement must be comprehensive—in the style of the unofficial Geneva accords, for example—delivering a two-state solution and dealing finally with the main issues. It must include recognition of each other’s right to exist, as well as resolution of issues such as security, the delineation of borders, settlements, Jerusalem, water and the refugee issue, together with interim confidence-building measures, including the cessation of violence, a halt to the expansion of settlements and the release of political prisoners from both sides, including Gilad Shalit.

Last month the well-known Palestinian refugee poet Mahmoud Darwish died. In his last poem, Mr Darwish described Palestinians and Israelis as ‘two men trapped in a hole and bargaining over their share of the common grave’. This is a powerful image and it is a future that we must work to avoid. In reflecting on Darwish’s passing, the Commissioner-General of UNRA, Karen AbuZayd, noted:

… the need to recognize the narrative of the other, the transforming power of simple acknowledgement and the lasting good that flows when two historical currents come together, however painful the confluence might be.

These words eloquently express the mutual respect, courage and leadership that are needed to fulfil the hopes for peace.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to address the motion and I seek to present the case for, and indeed a defence of, Israel. Although it is important to try to solve the issue in its own right, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not actually at the heart of every conflict in the Middle East—the concept of linkage is often overstated. Conflicts between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, Hezbollah’s miniwar against the government of Lebanon and even the internecine fighting between Palestinian groups have roots that go much deeper than and are often highly unrelated to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and will not go away even after a two-state solution is realised.

With respect to the motion and the Saudi-Arab League peace plan, there is no question that the plan is a good start, but that is what it must be—a start. Israel has said numerous times that it would be happy to sit down with the Arab League states and use their plan as the starting point for negotiations. The Arab League, however, has presented the plan as a ‘take it or leave it’ proposition and refuses to negotiate any of its points. This is unrealistic, since the peace plan contains several positions that Israel cannot accept without negotiation. It uses language which suggests—and which the Arab world understands to mean—that the so-called right of return of all Palestinian refugees to Israel would negate Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. It does not deviate at all from the 4 June 1967 borders, meaning Israel cannot absorb some of its bigger settlements in exchange for swaps of other land to make up the difference. It is generally accepted that such a land swap would be part of any peace settlement.

The plan has been presented as a prerequisite for Israel’s negotiations—that is, Israel has been told that, once it carries out all of the Arab League demands, then and only then will the Arab League negotiate the terms of peace. By that stage, of course, Israel would have no more leverage. There is no guarantee that all of the Arab League states would feel themselves bound by a final settlement reached under the plan and thus bound to make peace. Each of the states has reserved for itself the right to determine whether Israel has complied with the requirements of the plan. It would be very easy for a country such as Syria to find a pretext for claiming noncompliance and maintaining its state of war.

With respect to the right of return, it may be true to say that that is a final status issue that needs to be resolved, but it must be resolved by the Palestinians accepting that the exercise of this right is incompatible with any two-state solution and therefore incompatible with peace. Whether a so-called right of return exists under international law is debatable, and I am sure the issue will continue to be contested. Importantly, though, it is not claimed by, or for, any other refugee population in the world. It is also notable that, for every other refugee population in the world, only those people who actually left their homes are regarded as refugees.

For the Palestinians, however, all descendants of the original refugees are regarded as refugees. So an original exodus of 600,000 to 800,000 people, of which an estimated 200,000 are still alive, may balloon into a population of more than four million. By referring to a right of return for Palestinian refugees, the motion could be said to prejudice an issue that must be negotiated, thereby undermining the core premise of the rest of the motion. It would be preferable, I believe, to refer to this issue as being about the status of the Palestinian refugees and their descendants. The issue should be resolved by a full right for all the refugees and their descendants to return to a new Palestinian state and some kind of compensation package for actual refugees, with international money to assist in the resettlement. The issue is complex. It is steeped and rooted in history, and only with continued dialogue and good faith on both sides can a suitable settlement and answer come forward.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.