Australia abstains on controversial UN Israel vote
Australia has abstained from casting its vote on a controversial UN motion drafted by the Palestinian Authority demanding an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank.
Jewish communal leaders have slammed Australia’s decision to abstain from the United Nations General Assembly vote on the one-sided resolution demanding Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza.
The motion was drafted by the Palestinian Authority and also included a demand for sanctions against Israel.
The non-binding resolution was carried in the UN General Assembly by 124 votes to 14, with 43 countries abstaining including Australia, the UK, Canada and Germany.
The US voted against the motion, along with a number of Australia’s close Pacific partners including Papua New Guinea and Fiji.
New Zealand, Japan, Indonesia and France supported the resolution.
Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) co-CEO Peter Wertheim said the resolution is “an invitation to endless war and bloodshed, an encouragement to Iran and its proxies to step up their aggression and pursue their openly-declared genocidal aims against Israel”.
“It betrays every basic principle on which the UN was founded,” said Wertheim.
“The resolution will stand as a monument to the moral abyss into which the UN has sunk.
“Australia should have had no part of it. It should have voted no instead of taking the morally cowardly way out and abstaining.”
Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) president Jeremy Leibler said the Albanese government’s abstention is “concerning”.
“By abstaining, the government has sent an ambiguous message, departing from its long-standing position that territorial withdrawals must be negotiated as part of a comprehensive peace agreement, in line with UN Security Council Resolution 242,” said Leibler.
“This decision disregards Israel’s legitimate security concerns and appears indifferent to its right to defend itself against ongoing threats from Iran and its proxy terrorist organisations across multiple fronts.
“By abstaining, Australia distances itself from its natural ally — the United States — who stood with Israel in this critical moment by voting against this motion. Australia has missed an important opportunity to take a strong stand against the politicisation of the UN and in favour of a negotiated, peaceful resolution benefiting both Israelis and Palestinians.”
Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council executive director Colin Rubenstein said, “This Palestinian-written resolution stands in complete contradiction to Australia’s bipartisan policy of seeking to encourage a negotiated two-state peace, as well as UN Security Council resolutions calling for this outcome.
“By passing this resolution, the UN has endorsed the wild and false accusations it contains, encouraged continued Palestinian rejectionism and rewarded Hamas’ barbaric atrocities of October 7, thus making achieving genuine peace vastly more difficult.”
Foreign Minister Penny Wong said Australia had wanted to vote for the motion but negotiations to insert amendments were unsuccessful.
“Frankly, we were in a position where we were wanting to be able to vote for a resolution which did reflect closely the ICJ [International Court of Justice] opinion, which gave impetus to a pathway to peace,” Wong told ABC AM.
“We worked very hard in New York with others, including the Palestinian delegation, to seek amendments that would enable us to support it, as we did the recognition vote and the ceasefire vote, where the text enabled Australia to support it.
“We were disappointed that the amendments that we and many others supported were not accepted. For that reason, we abstained.”
Australia’s representative to the UN James Larsen said Australia abstained “with great disappointment” from the motion.
“We wanted to vote for a resolution that clearly offered the Palestinian people a path to self-determination – and gave the world a path to a two-state solution,” he said.
“And, we wanted to vote for a resolution that gave the international community a clear way to respond to the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion.
“However, we are concerned that by making demands of the entire UN membership that go beyond the scope of the advisory opinion, the resolution distracts from what the world needs Israel to do.”
comments