Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) Israel is a legitimate democratic state and ally of Australia;

(b) Australia remains committed to Israel's right to exist in peace and security, and continues to support a peaceful two-state resolution for the Israeli-Palestinian issue;

(c) Australia and Israel have a unique relationship supported by a commitment to the rights and liberty of their citizenry, the rule of law and a pluralist society underpinned by mutual respect;

(d) there is a concerning collapse of the traditional support among Australia's political parties for the path to a peaceful agreement between the State of Israel and the Palestinians for a two-state solution; and

(e) the culture within the Australian Labor Party (ALP) regarding foreign policy is deteriorating, aided by high profile party figures who perpetrate enduring myths about the causes of instability in the Middle East; and

(2) calls on the ALP to:

(a) reject the empty symbolism within the politically correct interpretation of issues in the Middle East; and

(b) condemn senior figures within it who have called for Australia, independent of any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, to formally recognise a Palestinian state.

I would like to begin this discussion by saying that I wish this motion never needed to be moved. I wish it were not the case, but the tragedy of it is that once upon a time a relatively bipartisan consensus sat between the two major parties about the importance of Israel, our ally and friend, and that we should steadfastly support not only our shared commitment and values with one of the few democracies in the Middle East but also Israel as it seeks to advance our values and take them to the rest of the world. Tragically today, you cannot say that is the case anymore.

There are increasingly large sections within the Australian Labor Party that do not share the same commitment to Israel that exists on this side of the chamber. Of course, Australia's foreign policy should always stem from our shared values. We always welcome the opportunity when the Australian Labor Party and other political parties which represent—shall we call them?—the progressive left of politics stand up and defend our values and our way of life. Unfortunately, that is often missing, but we do like it when it does occur.

We recognise and continue to support our great friend Israel as the unique beacon of liberal democracy in the Middle East. The strength of our relationship with Israel originates from our shared commitments to democracy, liberty, the rule of law and a pluralist society. In all discussions of international conflict, and particularly the Israel-Palestine dispute, we must always follow our moral compass and recognise our support for the state of Israel, its right to defend itself and its right to exist. Having been to Israel on a couple of occasions—including one visit being teargassed by the IDF in the middle of a Bethlehem refugee camp—I recognise that some of the debates are extremely complex. I am not trying to say that there is a one-size-fits-all solution to all issues relating to Israel, but I do think it has to come from a basic understanding of the proposition that we support its right to exist and support its purpose and sense of nationhood, and that is often lacking in so much of the contemporary debate.

A disturbing culture and an empty symbolism of virtue signalling have now developed within the Australian Labor Party. Many senior Labor Party figures now find a common cause and practice to side against our friend in favour of her enemies and those who seek to tear down the country and delegitimise its right to exist. We have people like Kevin Rudd, Bob Carr and Gareth Evans, and particularly the latter two, who have recently called for Australia to recognise a Palestinian state without proper recognition of the violence that has been committed against the state of Israel. It was an extraordinary attention-seeking move to hijack the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And if the deteriorating foreign policy culture of the Australian Labor Party was not enough, the factual inaccuracies used to substantiate their claims were truly dumbfounding.

Mr Rudd's commentary chose to ignore the numerous occasions the Palestinian leadership has thwarted peace offers and he laid blame firmly at Mr Netanyahu's feet. Mr Rudd has continually changed his tune, depending on which group he speaks to—with different and opposing views, depending on whether he is speaking to a Jewish audience or to some other organisation where he seeks to enjoy applause and support. Of course, we also have the continual contributions of Bob Carr, the former foreign minister, who regularly waxes lyrical at criticism of the state of Israel as part of his ongoing public commentary. Let's get the facts straight. It is not true to say Israel will not negotiate and will not compromise. Former Israeli prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert offered virtually everything that could be offered in an independent state on three occasions. Palestinian leaders rejected each and every attempt.

For the sake of Israeli and Palestinian families, a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue must not be undermined. Any peace agreement in the Middle East will rely on a change in political culture among Palestinians. I am not suggesting that Israel have acted without fault. But considering they face an IS terror campaign to their south, Hamas at the Gaza border and both IS and al-Qaeda affiliates to the north, Israel are constantly being undermined from different sides. You would think they could turn to a country like Australia and see a bipartisan consensus supporting their right to exist, supporting them in their pursuit of nationhood, not a situation where the parliamentary leadership on the Labor side continues to resist supporting the position of our dear and good friend. The lack of morality and principle on display is truly deplorable. Any astute scholar of international relations knows that unilateral proposals such as those suggested are bound to fail if one party is vehemently against them. I encourage members to support the motion.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for this motion?

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia's support for Israel is deep and enduring. It is founded in our shared values as democratic nations and is a bond of true friendship. It is a friendship that goes back to the founding of modern Israel, when Labor's Doc Evatt helped introduce UN resolution 181, and to when, under Labor Prime Minister Ben Chifley, Australia was the first country to cast a vote in favour of creating the modern state of Israel.

Today, the Australian Labor Party's relationship with Israel is built on the same robust base that founded our friendship generations ago: shared democratic values and a common commitment to justice and to the rights, liberty and security of our citizens. Many of my colleagues in both major parties have travelled to Israel and the Palestinian territories to see firsthand the challenges being faced. No friend of Israel will forget that throughout both Operation Cast Lead and Operation Protective Edge prime ministers Rudd and Gillard publicly and unequivocally reaffirmed the right of Israel to defend its citizens against attacks by Hamas, a terrorist organisation that continues to reject Israel's very right to exist. Labor also unequivocally opposes the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions campaign, which seeks to disrupt normal relations with Israel and so only to increase the polarisation that underpins the conflict in the Middle East.

While our national political debate has become increasingly partisan, I take comfort in knowing that on many issues affecting Israel my political opponents in the Liberal Party and I are usually in agreement. This bipartisanship has not always been in place. Of the 15 Jews who have served in the federal parliament since World War II, 12 have been in the Australian Labor Party. This may be referable to a number of historical factors, including Labor's enthusiastic support for the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, while the Liberal Party under Robert Menzies opposed that historic event, and the strong personal and cultural links between the Australian Labor Party, the Histadrut and the great Israeli Labor prime ministers, including David Ben Gurion, Levi Eshkol, Golda Meir and Yitzhak Rabin. However, today both major parties recognise that Australia's interests, as well as the interests of Israelis and Palestinians, are best served by rock-solid, bipartisan support for both peoples, and for the peace process in which they are engaged. I consider it critically important that the two major parties continue to ensure this bipartisanship is maintained.

This motion, by an irresponsible backbencher, is an unfortunate exception to this bipartisanship. The tragic conflict between Israelis and Palestinians and the fraught peace process in which they have been involved for generations are not playthings for Australian politicians desperately seeking to score some cheap political points. There are sufficient divisions already in the Middle East, and no Australian MP should be seeking to import divisions to our parliament. More significantly, the peace process is a matter of life and death for both Israelis and Palestinians, and should never be the subject of cheap political pointscoring here. Labor's position is set out clearly in our national platform. In that guiding document, we unequivocally state:

Labor supports an enduring and just two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the right of Israel to live in peace within secure borders internationally recognised and agreed by the parties, and reflecting the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to also live in peace and security within their own state.

Paul Keating was the Prime Minister of Australia at the time of Prime Minister Rabin's assassination, and he issued a statement which included the following words, as true today as they were back in 1995:

The best way the world can honour Mr Rabin is to push ahead with the work that he began. For Australia's part, we will continue to give our full support to the peace process. Our support for Israel's right to exist in security and safety will remain a guiding principle of our policy.

And it is still our policy in the Australian Labor Party, just as it was then, as stated by Prime Minister Keating. I call on all members of this parliament who respect Israel and the Palestinians and who are genuine in their support for the fragile peace process to put petty politics aside and support those peoples in the spirit of true bipartisanship as Australian politicians united in a rare but noble common purpose.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Goldstein for raising such an important topic for discussion this evening. First, let me say that I, like this government—and, I note, many on the other side of politics, like the member for Isaacs—unequivocally recognise the right of the Jewish people to live in the modern state of Israel. That the Jewish people have a legitimate claim to that land and to the city of Jerusalem is blindingly obvious. It is deeply sown into their history, their religion and their culture.

Recognition of Israel's right to exist is also a fact of modern political history stretching back to the Balfour Declaration in 1917. The Prime Minister recently pointed to Australia's role in that history, noting that we were the first country to vote in favour of the 1947 UN partition resolution, which led to the establishment of Israel in 1948. The land of Israel holds a centrality to the Jewish identity unique among all other peoples and religions. Therefore, it is highly hypocritical for some on the modern Left to insist upon the right of Palestinian statehood yet, in spite of the facts, equivocate over the right of the Jewish people to the land central to their own history, religion and culture.

Israel and Australia share much in common, not least their commitment to democracy and the Western liberal tradition. Indeed, Israel stands unique among the Middle Eastern states for its commitment to open democratic process, free elections, human rights and the equal treatment of women. The numbers from Israel testify to its standing as an advanced democratic society. To take just a few examples, Israel enjoys high levels of employment, with a higher level of female employment than the OECD average. Indeed, in all sectors, there are more female than male graduates from higher education. The fertility rate in Israel sits at 3.0—well above the OECD average of 1.7—and Israeli parents receive full pay compensation for parental leave.

I can personally attest to Israel's commitment to human rights. On a recent trip to Israel, up in the Golan Heights, I visited a hospital as part of a trip that was funded by an Australian-Jewish group, and I can attest to the state of Israel showing mercy and humane treatment to those who would do them harm. They had Syrian fighters who had been brought across the border, and they were being treated right there in an Israeli hospital. I got to speak with them directly and ask them how they got there, and they said it was the IDF that brought them over the border.

In recognising Israel's right to exist, I also recognise Israel's right to self-defence. I think it is true to say that, if countries around Israel did not have weapons, there might be peace. But, if Israel did not have weapons, there would certainly be no Israel. It has been said that Israel is a 'villa in a jungle'—I think that was Ehud Barak—and the former ALP leader, Kim Beazley, said that it has the 'strategic depth of a beachside suburb'. Many adversaries surround it.

It is a real challenge. You have the Iranian axis, with Iran, Hezbollah and the Assad regime, on one side. You have radical Sunni Islamists, most clearly expressed with Islamic State and al-Qaeda, who would do them harm. You have political Islamists in the region, led by the Muslim Brotherhood, who are very active in Egypt, Tunisia, Sudan, Yemen and other places, all of whom would deny Israel statehood. And then you have the Arab states, who are threatened by the first three but certainly are no friend of Israel at the United Nations. So the threat faced by Israel is pervasive and unrelenting.

I was in Sderot, in the south, which is only a kilometre away—maybe two kilometres away—from Gaza. Since 2000, they have had about 12,000 rockets fired into their community, and they live every day under the threat of rockets. I was surprised at how resilient they were, given the stress that that must cause the locals there.

I must say that as Australians we should not allow either side to use victimhood as a strategic weapon. The task before us on both sides of politics and indeed before whoever forms government in the next few years is reconciling those interests: Israeli interests and Palestinian interests. Rather than taking sides, we should be helping both sides work on each other's victory speeches. Of course, wrongs have been committed on both sides, but I think it is fair to say that there is only one voice on the side that opposes Israel that denies the legitimacy of Israel.

The Israel I have observed is a remarkable country that has thrived in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. In a time when it is less safe for Israel than ever, I add my voice among its supporters, and I call on all in this place to work together in upholding its legitimacy and seeking a lasting peace in that region.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'The time has come for everyone to find the courage to be generous and creative in the service of the common good, the courage to forge a peace which rests on the acknowledgement by all of the right of two states to exist and to live in peace and security within internationally recognised borders.' They are the words of Pope Francis during his visit to the Holy Land in 2014. I believe they reflect much of the views of all those who seek a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

My upbringing caused me to know from a young age that Jews have been historically a much-persecuted people; therefore, I find it easy to accept the right of the Jewish state to exist, and I believe that the people of Israel are entitled to live in peace and to protect their way of life. However, I have to say that I have become increasingly concerned about the hostilities in Israel's occupied territories and the lack of progress towards the creation of a Palestinian state. Indeed, I believe that the Palestinians too have a right to exist and enjoy statehood.

In 2014, the Gaza war had a profound impact on me. This was a conflict which saw Israel attempt to suppress the hostile attacks of Hamas, resulting in the deaths of some 1,500 Palestinians, of which 538 were children. Gaza was decimated and critical infrastructure destroyed, along with the housing of more than 100,000 Palestinians. I still find it hard to shake the images of the four young boys playing on the beach at Gaza who were cut down. While I have serious misgivings about the scale of the Israeli response, I am equally disturbed by the fact that civilian sites were used by Hamas to shield the militia, and I deplore the fact that over 30,000 rockets were fired by Hamas, threatening the lives of Israeli citizens. Nevertheless, no fair-minded person could possibly have thought that the response to those attacks at Gaza was proportionate.

With a view to a lasting peace in the region, I recognise the decency of all people, and certainly the international community has long held the expectation of a two-state solution recognising the sovereignty of both Israel and Palestine. Indeed, Benjamin Netanyahu, when he took office in 2009, spoke of his determination to see the two peoples live with amity and mutual respect and indicated that Israel would be ready to support a two-state solution in a future peace agreement.

However, the behaviour of Mr Netanyahu and members of his government in the lead up to the last election caused doubts in the minds of many people. I know that many of those sit opposite. It caused doubt as to whether they were truly going to seek a two-state solution. The international community should be demanding an unequivocal commitment to a two-state solution and also the reinvigoration of the peace process itself. I am aware that, since coming to office in 2009, more than 14,000 homes have been built in the occupied territories. The issue of settlement remains an active one and continues to frustrate the peace process. Clearly, the construction of the settlements must cease.

There can be no doubt that a two-state solution is in the best interest of Israel itself. The consequences of trying to absorb the territories will simply lead either to the end of Israel's democracy, if the Palestinians were denied a vote, or to the end of Israel as a predominantly Jewish state and a haven for Jews escaping persecution. Clearly, a country like Australia, along with many others, could not accept a situation of a population being denied its fundamental democratic rights—surely Israel knows this. It cannot be allowed to be considered as an outcome.

Given the comments by President Netanyahu and senior members of his Likud party to distance themselves in the past from a two-state solution, I believe it falls to countries of good will, such as Australia, who believe in the dignity of all peoples of the region, to become more engaged in the peace process, addressing the need for tangible progress in the creation of a Palestinian state while ensuring the respect and security of the Jewish homeland. I will conclude with the words of Pope Benedict: 'Let the two-state solution become a reality and not simply remain a dream.'

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on the motion of the member for Goldstein. I associate myself with his comments and with those of the member for Canning. I commend the member for Isaacs and the member for Fowler on the good faith they have shown in this debate.

The points raised by the member for Goldstein in his motion are very true. We know that Israel is a legitimate, democratic state and a good, strong ally of Australia. It is a democratic state, a beacon in an area where democracy is the exception rather than the rule. We know that Australia and Israel have a unique relationship, supported by a commitment to the rights and liberty of their citizens, the rule of law and a pluralist society underpinned by mutual respect. Our ties go back to the Battle of Beersheba. I have been to Israel and I have seen the famous statue that was built there. In fact, the light horse that fought in Beersheba came originally from my electorate of Hughes, down in Remount Park, originally in Holsworthy.

If we are going to discuss Israel, we need to do so in a bipartisan way. The member for Goldstein is right to raise the concern that some members of the Left, particularly in New South Wales, are threatening bipartisan support for the two-state solution in Israel. That is something that I hope we can avoid in this parliament, because if we all want to see the peace process in the Middle East advance, the best way to do that is by contributing what we in Australia can in a bipartisan way.

This debate is very timely. As we speak, the US President, President Trump, is probably a few hours away from arriving in Tel Aviv for his historic visit. President Trump has referred to settling the Israel-Palestine conflict as being the ultimate deal. We know that many have tried to settle it, and many have failed. We can only wish President Trump all the best in his endeavours. The US President gave a speech in Saudi Arabia, recently. He said:

For many centuries the Middle East has been home to Christians, Muslims and Jews living side-by-side. We must practice tolerance and respect for each other once again—and make this region a place where every man and woman, no matter their faith or ethnicity, can enjoy a life of dignity and hope.

In that spirit, after concluding my visit in Riyadh, I will travel to Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and then to the Vatican—visiting many of the holiest places in the three Abrahamic Faiths. If these three faiths can join together in cooperation, then peace in this world is possible—including peace between Israelis and Palestinians. I will be meeting with both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Already we have seen the Israelis, because of President Trump's visit, make some concessions, and they have been reported as making a concession of including increased building permits for Palestinians living in Area C of the West Bank—a part of the West Bank which is under full control of Israel. They have also allowed the opening of the Allenby Bridge, which is a crossing between the West Bank and Jordan, for 24 hours a day and the development of West Bank industrial zones near Jenin.

If we can have good faith from both sides, the Israelis and the Palestinians, in this dispute, if there is a chance that the peace process can be restarted, if it can be kicked off by President Trump, if he can urge the Israelis to restrict their settlements in the West Bank and if he can urge the Palestinians to give some concessions and recognise the legitimacy of the Israeli state, there may be a chance—a chance that we all must pray and hope for—that in the coming years we will see a permanent two-state solution to this conflict. That would be one of the greatest peace dividends that this world could have.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would love this to be a bipartisan issue, and you conducted yourself in that way, Mr Deputy Speaker. But the member for Goldstein chose not to do that, so let's go there. I am willing to stack Labor's record on this issue against the coalition's any day of the week. I could go back a long way, but let's start with Prime Minister Menzies's support for the 1939 white paper where the Jewish state's establishment was actually rejected, and it limited refugees from Nazi Germany to the consequences that we all now well understand. Let's also recall that Menzies's Liberal Party opposed the 1947 partition plan—they called it 'a ridiculous and stupid decision'—which Doc Evatt, as chair of the ad hoc committee, managed to negotiate and navigate through the UN process.

The Liberals also opposed Labor's de jure recognition of Israel. They opposed Labor's establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel. They opposed Labor's efforts to get Israel admitted as a member of the UN—again, work that was accomplished by Doc Evatt as President of the United Nations General Assembly. We could cite Prime Minister Menzies's support for Prime Minister Eden's 1955 proposal, which would have reduced Israel's boundaries from the 1949 armistice lines.

We could also refer to the coalition members who have been aired views in much more strident terms than members of the current parliamentary Labor Party. These include the member for Reid, the member for Farrer, the former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer and the former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. In fact, the member for Reid stated and asserted 'the issues that we as a globe confront today' can be traced back to the creation of the state of Israel. He also said of the two-state solution:

I believe this is used as a line to hide behind; it does not get past that.

The member for Farrer, of course, has often pushed for unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. In a democracy, Member for Goldstein, people will hold and express different views. I thought that was something you supported.

I am quite happy to also refer to Labor's record in government in its relations with Israel in our last term. As a member of the Defence portfolio, I was proud be involved in the establishment of Plasan's involvement with Thales in the great success story which was the Hawkei light tactical vehicle. During the Afghanistan conflict we also acquired the Heron UAVs, which I know were of great support to the member for Canning's efforts in that country. It was our contract with Elbit Systems that managed to establish the introduction of their battlefield management system into the Australian Defence Force. Our ties with Israel to establish counter-improvised-explosive-device work are deep and continuing. It even extended to acquiring Israeli combat badges and helmets during that time, and, of course, continuing to acquire Typhoon weapons systems for our naval vessels. So our involvement with Israel during that time was deep, meaningful and sustained.

But if we want to compare politics on this we should refer to the member for Goldstein's own attacks on section 18C, a matter of deep and abiding concern to the Australian Jewish community, just as many ethnic communities have voiced their concerns. That provision of that act has been the sole defence line against those in this country who would deny the holocaust, having been used on occasion to defend the Jewish community against those outrageous assertions, claims and attacks on a matter of great sensitivity to Jews. And, of course, virulent anti-Semitic attacks are protected by the provision of 18C, which the member for Goldstein wishes to remove.

Let us also refer to the foreign minister, Julie Bishop, whose efforts have been consistent in adopting a sycophantic policy towards Iran, simply too obviously resolve outstanding asylum seeker issues, which are matters that also have been of great concern to the Jewish community. That involvement with Iran saw an embarrassing episode where the foreign minister attended a conference of coalition nations, at which she tried to advance the cause of Iran being involved in those coalition conferences and involved in the exchange of internal intelligence, which was of course rejected by the other participants at that coalition conference. So, if we want to get into that, we can do it.

But let's not. Let's adopt the approach that you demonstrated, Mr Deputy Speaker, and get back to the situation of a bipartisan approach to this issue, because Labor fully endorses Israel's right to exist and to live peacefully within secure borders. There has been no change and there will be no change from that policy. We also continue to fully subscribe to the two-state solution, as does the government. How about you, Member for Goldstein, add something useful to this debate, such as how we might move forward on achieving the two-state solution, rather than playing cheap politics.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting that the member for Eden-Monaro came here to speak on a unity ticket but had his speech all ready to go slanging off at those on this side of the chamber. It is very interesting.

In March this year I had the opportunity, along with some parliamentary colleagues, to travel to Israel and speak to some of the people there for myself. I would like to begin by thanking the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council for giving us this remarkable insight into Israeli culture and political affairs. For over 3,000 documented years, the Jews have had an indefatigable connection with the land of Judea, the 'promised land'. The phrase that traditionally ends the Seder at the Passover, repeated by Jews all over the world, is 'next year in Jerusalem'. Having travelled to Israel I now understand the significance of that plea and what it means to the 14 million Jews scattered the world over.

Life is difficult for those who uproot their businesses and families to re-join their ancestral homeland. They face a nation with an uncertain geo-political future, with neighbours on every side who refuse to accept its inhabitants' right to exist. Take, for example, the story of Joe Krycer, who came to Israel in recent years from my own birthplace of Caulfield, Melbourne. I met him in a small city named Sderot, which is less than one mile from Gaza. We made our way up three flights of stairs in the fortified main school building to learn that since 2001 Hamas had launched 30,000 rockets and mortars into the town, killing around 15 people and wounding countless more. There is an air raid shelter every 100 meters along the roadways and the apprehension and tenseness of its people was quite palpable. Understandably, PTSD is a real problem for the town's inhabitants.

So why is it that the inhabitants of Sderot would choose to stay there? Why would developers be building new homes and shopping centres in a town that has seen constant threats and destruction?

Why would Joe Krycer leave the peace of Melbourne to live in such a town? The answer, as I have begun to understand it, although clearly not fully, is the love of and deep affinity with their ancestral homeland. It is that deep unquenchable desire to return to the place of their ancestors that makes people the world over want to return to the Promised Land. Prior to my travels I had often heard about the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights, but I had never heard of the town of Sderot. I will never forget its lasting impression, which is not one of fear but rather one of resilience and resoluteness.

If I am to describe the Israelis in two words it would be those, resilient and resolute. From a very young age, Israelis are taught that not only is it okay to fail but if they are not failing they are not stretching the bounds of human endeavour. There are many lessons that we Australians in business and politics can learn from such an approach.

Thankfully, not since the Second World War has Australia faced the constant threat of attack by its neighbours, a threat which Israelis have faced since the war of independence in 1947. Australians have not had to deal with the loss and grief associated with the annihilation of six million of their country folk. It is both this historical and current day adversity which seems to forge the Israeli spirit, young and old alike. Once again, many in our own society could benefit from displaying more of this fortitude.

The fact that Israel is the only democracy in its region also stood out. We were fortunate enough to gain entry to the Knesset and sit in on a session of the Israeli parliament. Israel continues to be a beacon of light in a region of failed states and dictatorships which are harsh on their own people and their enemies alike. Israel is a democracy which is founded on the freedoms of speech, political affiliation, personal property and, that favourite of members opposite, the freedom to strike and demonstrate. I thank the chamber for the opportunity to tell the chamber about some of my dealings in my recent trip to Israel. I voice my desire to support wholly the people and the government of Israel.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This morning I highlighted the bog ignorance of the Liberals when it comes to Australian history when I discussed their lack of respect for Sir Robert Menzies's legacy and vision for our nation's great capital, the city of Canberra. This motion underscores that bog ignorance. As my colleague the member for Eden-Monaro has just said, those opposite are all about cheap politics and nasty politics. I remind the member for Goldstein that it was under Labor that Australia played an important role in supporting resolution 181, which helped to bring into existence the modern state of Israel. And it was under Labor's leadership that Australia then welcomed that new state as a member state of the United Nations. It was under Labor Prime Minister Chifley that Doc Evatt's strong support for a two-state solution was reinforced when he cabled Britain's Prime Minister Attlee and urged early recognition of Israel saying:

Such declaration would properly indicate willingness to agree in principle to the recognition of the Provisional Government of Israel, and at the same time willingness to recognize de facto the Arab authorities in actual control of Arab Sections of Palestine.

On Anzac Day I attended an evening service at the National Jewish Memorial Centre in Forrest. The service, which is now in its second year, acknowledges and remembers the contribution and ultimate sacrifice of the thousands of Jewish Australians who served in the First World War and other wars.

Over 7,000 Jews have fought in Australia's conflicts, including more than 330 who gave their lives. This year, Canberra's Jewish community honoured the most well-known, Sir John Monash, the commander of the Australian Corps, who was knighted on the battlefield by King George V for his role in the Battle of Hamel. He was one of Australia's first national heroes. He was a man of modern values who lived by the courage of his convictions and his own view of the big picture. His values are a legacy that endures 100 years on.

At the service, I also learned of Sir John Monash's wife, who came from a family that had been prominent in Goulburn's Jewish community. I found out all about Goulburn's Jewish community. My colleague and I were discussing the depth and history of that community. In the 19th century, Goulburn was a multicultural city ahead of its time, boasting the third largest Jewish population in New South Wales. Over 150 years on, the Jewish community in Goulburn has significantly dwindled. Most Jewish families left Goulburn in the late 1800s in search of the type of job opportunities offered only in larger cities. Today, Goulburn's Jewish cemetery is one of the only reminders of the once prominent community. I am looking forward to making a drive out to Goulburn soon to take a look at the history of the Jewish cemetery, joining members of Canberra's Jewish community here who have connections with the many prominent families of Goulburn of that day: the Yates family, who were formerly the Goetz family, and the Alexanders—a number of very prominent families that still have a connection to Canberra and Goulburn. I was just hearing from my colleague about how the connections still linger. The cemetery, unfortunately, has fallen into disrepair since World War II. It was restored and reconsecrated in 1987. I am looking forward to going back there with the members of the Canberra Jewish community to look at that cemetery.

Later this year, I will also have the great honour of attending commemorations for the 100th anniversary of the 4th Australian Light Horse Brigade charge at Beersheba on 31 October. On that day, the attack was carried out by the XX Corp on the west and Desert Mounted Corps on the east. That evening, the 4th Australian Light Horse Brigade charged over the Turkish trenches into the town. I will visit the Commonwealth War Graves cemetery in Beersheba, which I have been to before. I will again pay my respects to those Australians who unfortunately did not return home, those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

In closing, I reiterate Labor's commitment to the pursuit of peace and stability throughout the Middle East, and Labor's support of an enduring and just two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the right of Israel to live in peace within secure borders internationally recognised and agreed by the parties, and reflecting the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to also live in peace and security within their state. Let us strive in a bipartisan way for that end.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.