Australia’s political parties must consider Israel-Palestine
Australians are yearning for balanced, considered leadership.
As Australia heads into an election period unlike any other in recent memory, two separate, but related issues seem to be on the minds of politicians and voters: the frightening rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia; and Australia’s position with regards to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.
These have been a consistent feature in the news cycle. The latest ceasefire officially ended on 18 March with Israeli airstrikes on Gaza, settler violence is on the rise, the Israeli government is already de facto annexing parts of the West Bank and undermining the remaining checks and balances in its democracy, and the Trump presidency is sowing more chaos in what is already a volatile environment. Understandably, Australians are yearning for balanced, considered leadership.
With all of this as a backdrop, what does it mean for Australian political leaders to implement th long-standing commitment that it has held, across political parties, for a two-state solution in the region? Candidates vying for our votes should answer this question by outlining a clear and principled policy agenda that moves beyond reacting to the aforementioned crises, and instead contributes to long-term peace and stability. Candidates should express their support for empowering Israeli civil society leaders who work tirelessly to shape a better reality for those on the ground.
It is evident there is nowhere to go unless Australia pushes for a permanent ceasefire and the return of all the remaining hostages. A lasting and just resolution can only emerge when violence ceases and humanitarian needs are met. The Albanese government has continuously called for a ceasefire, the release of hostages, and increased humanitarian aid, a position that in the ideal world would be unequivocally bipartisan (and indeed, multi or non-partisan). In addition, Australia would whole-heartedly support a region-led solution–such as Egypt’s plan endorsed by the Arab League, similar to the Israeli Initiative drafted by New Israel Fund partners the Mitvim Institute and the Berl Katznelson Foundation–one that accounts for the perspectives of Israel’s neighbours like Jordan and Egypt, and supports normalisation of diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia.
Polling done in November 2024 by the Arab World for Research and Development, showed the majority of Palestinians polled across the West Bank and Gaza believed that negotiations or a peace process would be the most helpful to end the occupation and achieve an independent state. This polling also showed the majority of Palestinian respondents preferred a two-state solution as a means to end the current conflict. Similarly, polling done by NIF partner aChord showed more than half of Israeli respondents were in favour of reaching a political-security settlement that includes the establishment of a Palestinian state in exchange for normalisation agreements with Arab countries and recognition of the State of Israel. While these numbers may not seem like overwhelming support, they constitute majority support. If we wait and hope those numbers rise, we will miss a critical window to enact lasting change for the region.
Supporting a region-led solution means condemning Trump’s plan for Gaza. As our closest ally, our foreign policy is often formed in lock-step with the US, but Australia has obligations under international law to oppose forcibly displacing Gaza’s population at the behest of one of Trump’s many whims. It is obvious this ‘solution’, which Trump backed up with a horrifying AI video of himself and Netanyahu sipping cocktails in the new ‘riviera of the Middle East’, only risks exacerbating instability and undermining prospects for peace. Australia has a strong track record of supporting Palestinian self-determination, advocating for policies that uphold the rights and aspirations of both peoples, rather than unilateral or coercive solutions.
On self-determination, we have seen an increasing number of nations, including key European partners, moving toward recognising a Palestinian state. Recognition is more than a symbolic act—it reinforces moderate Palestinian leadership, strengthens diplomatic leverage, and affirms the importance of negotiations based on international law. While the Australia Labor party has committed to recognising a Palestinian state, it hasn’t done so while in government. Opposition parties and independents can push the government to align with this growing international consensus, as part of a broader diplomatic approach.
What comes next? We know the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is dire, with millions of civilians facing acute shortages of food, water, medical supplies, and electricity. Beyond that, Israel is now using electricity, or lack thereof in Gaza, as a means to pressure Hamas to accept an extended ceasefire, rather than negotiating phase two. Of course, Israel has the right to address its security concerns and safeguard its citizens, but nothing good can come of restricting humanitarian aid to a region already experiencing famine and immense destruction. Basic human needs cannot be used as a bargaining tool to pressure Hamas, as this ultimately punishes innocent civilians. Australia’s political parties should be advocating for the unimpeded flow and equitable distribution of humanitarian assistance. In the absence of UNRWA, Israel must allow alternative humanitarian organisations to meet the needs of millions in Gaza.
Not only has Israel approved a proposal to deny registration and work visas to international non-government organisations whose “main activity” is to “provide assistance for the social welfare of Palestinian residents”, but it is now threatening the very existence of non-government organisations within Israel. We at the New Israel Fund Australia whole-heartedly believe Israeli civil society organisations play a crucial role in upholding democratic values, human rights, and the rule of law. However, recent legislative efforts to impose an 80% tax on any organisation receiving funding from foreign governments, and barring those who receive a majority of their funding from foreign government from petitioning the Supreme Court, pose significant challenges to their work.
Organisations like Yesh Din, which documents human rights violations in the West Bank; the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, which defends democratic freedoms; and Bimkom, which supports Palestinian communities facing displacement, are essential voices in the fight for justice and equality. As a proud liberal-democracy and a friend to Israel, Australia must not only condemn this move, but also provide targeted support, such as social cohesion funding or human rights grants, to assist these organisations in their critical work.
Despite the challenges, there are still promising initiatives that bring Israelis and Palestinians together to build a shared future. The global New Israel Fund community is supporting this approach by combining policy development with grassroots activism. This program, in partnership with organisations like the Berl Katznelson Foundation and the Mitvim Institute, has worked to craft diplomatic solutions and shape public discourse around peace as a viable and necessary path forward. Filling this void now and building confidence in a shared future has been important in a time of heightened polarisation and hopelessness.
Through broad coalitions like the It’s Time Peace Coalition, which brought thousands together in one of Israel’s largest peace rallies in recent history, and innovative campaigns like The People’s Peace Journey, Israeli civil society is bolstering a movement for peace in challenging times. It has been, and will continue to be, remiss of those on all sides of the political spectrum to not recognise, support or amplify these initiatives as part of Australia’s broader commitment to stability and conflict resolution.
Michael Chaitow is the executive director of New Israel Fund (NIF) Australia.
comments